Bannon Is Subpoenaed in Mueller’s Russia Investigation - NY Times

[Ghostpanther]

Did you just "UMADBRO" me? Ahahaha!

But no, go back and read that again. I said it disgusts me. Because your behaviour is disgusting.

Ahh. So it is personal. Get over it. Or get use to it. lol!

[Mormolyce]

Ahh. So it is personal. Get over it. Or get use to it. lol!

Don't flatter yourself, I'm using you as a stand in for many other Americans who are similarly indolent about the rampant corruption in their government and their country's dire need of constitutional reform.

This was never about my feelings or you personally, but you're determined to make it so because you'd rather talk about anything else. Because you have nothing.

[Breccia]

HAHAHAHAHA

Oh, I don't care where this leads. The fact that he was subpoenaed at all is marvelous. It means, his time in the campaign and/or WH is considered tainted. It means, the quotes in the book are considered valid. It means, there is due reason, enough to get past a judge, to believe Bannon might know something illegal happened with Team Trump.

I legit don't care if this ends up a soft fart in a gale-force wind. They asked him. They actually asked him.

And nothing, NOTHING, Trump's rabid fanbase can do or say, can get rid of this. Ever.

[Stormspark]

So will he turn? Or will he go back to gobbling Trump's knob?

[Ghostpanther]

Don't flatter yourself, I'm using you as a stand in for many other Americans who are similarly indolent about the rampant corruption in their government and their country's dire need of constitutional reform.

This was never about my feelings or you personally, but you're determined to make it so because you'd rather talk about anything else. Because you have nothing.

pfft. You think too highly of your importance. Nether of us or anyone on this forum is going to make a dent in the scheme of things overall. All we do is express opinions and in my case, it's mostly entertaining or in some uncommon cases, educational.

[Mormolyce]

pfft. You think too highly of your importance. Nether of us or anyone on this forum is going to make a dent in the scheme of things overall. All we do is express opinions and in my case, it's mostly entertaining or in some uncommon cases, educational.

And I was expressing my opinion of the state of US executive authority, its openness for abuse, how important constitutional reform is and how much the US has failed to rise to that occasion.

For some reason you were on a mission to take personal offence at that.

[Ghostpanther]

And I was expressing my opinion of the state of US executive authority, its openness for abuse, how important constitutional reform is and how much the US has failed to rise to that occasion.

For some reason you were on a mission to take personal offence at that.

I took no offense at all. It is only in your mind I did.

[Lynarii]

Well, impeachment is facing a vote to be removed from office. Which in essence is a vote if you are guilty of a crime worth being removed. Am I missing anything?

You are. Impeachment is not a conviction of anything. It's also not the same as a removal from office. In fact, there have been only two presidents of the US ever formally impeached, and neither one of them (Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton) were removed from office.

One has to understand that impeachment is a check that the legislative branch has against the executive. The Judicial branch isn't involved in it, and therefore it follows a different set of rules than a legal trial. Impeachment is the first step, when Congress levels the charges. To be removed from office, an impeached president must then be convicted via a supermajority in both the House and Senate. With both our current examples of impeached presidents, they were convicted in the House but not in the Senate, therefore they were not removed from office. The important point is that there are multiple votes happening. A vote on whether to impeach him, and then two more (harder) votes on whether to remove him from office. Success on the impeachment vote is not an indication of guilt. In fact, removal from office is not even an indication of guilt. In a legal sense, nothing in the entire process is considered a trial or a conviction of criminal wrongdoing.

As a side note, when Ford pardoned Nixon, it was because he feared that throwing a popular president into jail (and make no mistake, Nixon was quite popular and had very very powerful friends) would ignite sectarian fighting among the US population. And even so, it was a move that Ford never recovered from. Pence would probably do the same thing for much the same reason, all the groups that were talking about grabbing their guns and shooting liberals if Trump lost the election certainly wouldn't stay silent were he to be thrown in jail. But while pardoning Trump might keep at least some semblance of peace, it would sink Pence's presidency the same way that the Nixon pardon sank Ford's.

[Mormolyce]

I took no offense at all. It is only in your mind I did.

Not for lack of trying ahahaha!

[Ghostpanther]

You are. Impeachment is not a conviction of anything. It's also not the same as a removal from office. In fact, there have been only two presidents of the US ever formally impeached, and neither one of them (Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton) were removed from office.

One has to understand that impeachment is a check that the legislative branch has against the executive. The Judicial branch isn't involved in it, and therefore it follows a different set of rules than a legal trial. Impeachment is the first step, when Congress levels the charges. To be removed from office, an impeached president must then be convicted via a supermajority in both the House and Senate. With both our current examples of impeached presidents, they were convicted in the House but not in the Senate, therefore they were not removed from office. The important point is that there are multiple votes happening. A vote on whether to impeach him, and then two more (harder) votes on whether to remove him from office. Success on the impeachment vote is not an indication of guilt.

As a side note, when Ford pardoned Nixon, it was because he feared that throwing a popular president into jail (and make no mistake, Nixon was quite popular and had very very powerful friends) would ignite sectarian fighting among the US population. And even so, it was a move that Ford never recovered from. Pence would probably do the same thing for much the same reason, all the groups that were talking about grabbing their guns and shooting liberals if Trump lost the election certainly wouldn't stay silent were he to be thrown in jail. But while pardoning Trump might keep at least some semblance of peace, it would sink Pence's presidency the same way that the Nixon pardon sank Ford's.

I knew that. But that was because they lacked the votes to remove them. Not so sure it would sink Pence's Presidency. But that is conjecture anyway.

[Lynarii]

I knew that. But that was because they lacked the votes to remove him. Not so sure it would sink Pence's Presidency. But that is conjecture anyway.

It's no guarantee, but removing a president from office then pardoning him of any crimes is a solution that makes absolutely nobody happy. The detractors are angry he's not in jail, and the supporters are angry he was removed at all. Given how polarized everything is already, keeping the peace would take up an enormous amount of the government's time and energy. It's not impossible to get other things done in that environment, but it'd be even harder than normal, since there are VERY few politicians out there at the moment that command a degree of respect from both sides of the aisle.

[Ghostpanther]

It's no guarantee, but removing a president from office then pardoning him of any crimes is a solution that makes absolutely nobody happy. The detractors are angry he's not in jail, and the supporters are angry he was removed at all. Given how polarized everything is already, keeping the peace would take up an enormous amount of the government's time and energy. It's not impossible to get other things done in that environment, but it'd be even harder than normal, since there are VERY few politicians out there at the moment that command a degree of respect from both sides of the aisle.

I can see that. Makes sense. But I am not convinced Ford lost mainly because of what happened with Nixon. He was not a very good President. Too lay backed too much. Really did not get much accomplished during his term. I mean, I am sure some of what you are saying was in play. But I was a working adult when Ford was President. He was not that popular.

Pence would carry on with basically the same polices Trump has now, which would mean the ones who voted for Trump, would vote for him. Other than his religion stance, the media would have a lot less to condemn him on personally. But this is all speculation at this point.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But later, Ford pardoned him. So he served no jail time at all. Same thing could happen to Bannon or Flyn. Or Manafort. If Trump is indicted and ether resigns or is removed from office and charged with a crime, Pence would do the same thing I bet.

- - - Updated - - -



Or it is not as big as some think it is.

I certainly hope Pence pardons Trump.

Republicans would be slaughtered in 2018.

[Draco-Onis]

I can see that. Makes sense. But I am not convinced Ford lost mainly because of what happened with Nixon. He was not a very good President. Too lay backed too much. Really did not get much accomplished during his term. I mean, I am sure some of what you are saying was in play. But I was a working adult when Ford was President. He was not that popular.

Pence would carry on with basically the same polices Trump has now, which would mean the ones who voted for Trump, would vote for him. Other than his religion stance, the media would have a lot less to condemn him on personally. But this is all speculation at this point.

I disagree I am not sure why but a lot of Trump supporters don't like or want Mike Pence, if the whole Bannon saga has proven anything is that Trump is the center of the alt right universe.

[Mormolyce]

You are. Impeachment is not a conviction of anything. It's also not the same as a removal from office. In fact, there have been only two presidents of the US ever formally impeached, and neither one of them (Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton) were removed from office.

I mean, yes technically. But in common parlance "impeachment" refers to the whole process, ie impeachment in the House followed by the trial in the Senate.

In the language of the Consitution the House has the "sole power of impeachment", but the Senate has "sole power to try impeachments", which is really confusing phrasing... but basically the House just recommends charges that are "tried" in the Senate.

[Lynarii]

I can see that. Makes sense. But I am not convinced Ford lost mainly because of what happened with Nixon. He was not a very good President. Too lay backed too much. Really did not get much accomplished during his term. I mean, I am sure some of what you are saying was in play. But I was a working adult when Ford was President. He was not that popular.

Pence would carry on with basically the same polices Trump has now, which would mean the ones who voted for Trump, would vote for him. Other than his religion stance, the media would have a lot less to condemn him on personally. But this is all speculation at this point.

It is all speculation, but at least it's civil speculation, which is a decent step above a lot of what goes on in these threads. Speculation is all we'll have for a while, since it's not likely that Bannon or Mueller are going to be in any rush to publicize the details of their discussion. I have no expectation of changing anyone's mind on any of the threads I get involved in here, it's purely for my own education. In a world where feels and opinions often hold more weight than facts, it behooves me to pay attention to what people other than myself are thinking.

[Shadowferal]

Impeachment = House
Removal of Office = Senate

[Breccia]

So will he turn? Or will he go back to gobbling Trump's knob?

I think he is out of options. Only 1 percent of Trump voters side with Bannon over Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

TheHill weighs in. Most relevant part:

Multiple sources told The Hill that Bannon indicated to lawmakers that he would answer questions about the Trump campaign, but not about his work on the transition team or in the White House. Bannon, alongside his lawyer, said he would only answer those questions when he speaks to Mueller.

That stance infuriated lawmakers. Sources described the meeting as a “total free-for-all” and “brutal.”

“He doesn’t have any friends in that room,” one source said.

[Lynarii]

I mean, yes technically. But in common parlance "impeachment" refers to the whole process, ie impeachment in the House followed by the trial in the Senate.

In the language of the Consitution the House has the "sole power of impeachment", but the Senate has "sole power to try impeachments", which is really confusing phrasing... but basically the House just recommends charges that are "tried" in the Senate.

The important part of that whole post though was that no part of the process is actually a legal trial. There is never a vote about whether the person is innocent or guilty, the important vote is explicitly about whether or not the person should be removed from office and nothing else. One could very rightly say "I believe he is innocent, but must be removed from office because he has lost the trust of the public" and vote for removal, or say "I feel he is guilty, but removing him from office at this point in time will do more harm than good to the country as a whole" and vote to keep him. As tempting as it is to conflate them, a successful impeachment is not an indication of guilt, nor is an unsuccessful one an indication of innocence. Guilt or innocence is dealt with in an actual legal trial that is held separately.

[Mormolyce]

The important part of that whole post though was that no part of the process is actually a legal trial. There is never a vote about whether the person is innocent or guilty, the important vote is explicitly about whether or not the person should be removed from office and nothing else. One could very rightly say "I believe he is innocent, but must be removed from office because he has lost the trust of the public" and vote for removal, or say "I feel he is guilty, but removing him from office at this point in time will do more harm than good to the country as a whole" and vote to keep him. As tempting as it is to conflate them, a successful impeachment is not an indication of guilt, nor is an unsuccessful one an indication of innocence. Guilt or innocence is dealt with in an actual legal trial that is held separately.

I don't disagree with any of that.