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

[Ghostpanther]

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.

Some excellent points. And you are one of the few on here I would be interested in their opinion. Because you do it with class. Too many resort to chest pumping insults or condescending attitudes.

[Breccia]

Two more details:

1) Axios and NBC both report Bannon has agreed to work with Mueller, as most likely meaning "won't claim executive privilege because Mueller isn't stupid enough to allow that when Bannon isn't an executive".

2) Employees of a special counsel investigation are not affected by a government shutdown furlough. The investigation is ongoing.

[NYC17]

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.

Trump is a cult of personality. Pence has no personality.

[Paranoid Android]

Steve Bannon has a deal with the special counsel's team to be interviewed by prosecutors in the Russia probe, avoiding grand jury for now https://t.co/UvOWMKZURS https://t.co/105fbLWGl8

He may have been quiet to Congress but I hope he squeals to Mueller.

[Edge-]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...wdown-52397685

So apparently Bannon's lawyer was getting marching orders, or at least relaying information, to the White House during his House Intelligence testimony in real time.

Which...if that's legal, I can't imagine why. Holy shit that's ludicrously blatant corruption.

[Resurgo]

... Holy shit that's ludicrously blatant corruption.

Wait, as if all the other stuff before wasn't ludicrously blatant?

[mvaliz]

I certainly hope Pence pardons Trump.

Republicans would be slaughtered in 2018.

I'm more than expecting Petulant Pence to do so - provided he's not caught up in all this! Remember, it was Manafort who not only introduced him to Dumbass Dumbo Donnie, but also convinced the orange fuckwit turd to swap out the New Jersy Fatman for Pence as his VP at the last second. Clearly Manafort and Pence have some kinda deep connection/bond with eachother.

[Lynarii]

I mean the real fear is that if Trump felt there was a close chance at impeachment he might start a war. Even if he was blatantly guilty, the Republican could stand against impeachment because of emergency conditions claiming it is a poor time to unseat a president.

While Trump might want to do something like that, I can't imagine the GOP would back him on it. The military would not take being used in that fashion lightly, it needs time to rest and rearm from everything it's been doing the last decade as it is. And "Trump sends your children off to die in bid to keep power" is a headline that the Democrats would absolutely /love/ to have going across the country come election-time.

[Felya]

While Trump might want to do something like that, I can't imagine the GOP would back him on it. The military would not take being used in that fashion lightly, it needs time to rest and rearm from everything it's been doing the last decade as it is. And "Trump sends your children off to die in bid to keep power" is a headline that the Democrats would absolutely /love/ to have going across the country come election-time.

Bush was re-elected to finish his wars.

Edit: I don’t believe Trump would start a war to be re-elected. I think that’s crazy tin foil hat talk...

[Lynarii]

Bush was re-elected to finish his wars.

Perhaps, but the US was a lot less war-weary at that point in time, and Bush didn't start the war to try and keep himself from being impeached. Not to mention Bush's popularity in 2004 was in the low 50s for the most part, down from it's spike of 90% shortly after 9/11, but still a very solid amount of support to be going into an election with.

Besides which, if Trump faces impeachment it would only be possible with Republican support. Even if both the House and Senate flip in the midterms, the odds of Democrats getting a supermajority in both is pretty much impossible, and it takes a supermajority for impeachment to succeed. If the GOP doesn't want to get rid of him, they don't have to support starting a war to keep him, they just wouldn't impeach him to begin with. Starting a war to stay in power would be as much a middle finger to the Republicans as it would be to the Democrats, if anything the attempt would just force congress to rush the impeachment to get him out before the war can actually start.

[Paranoid Android]

BREAKING: AP Sources: Steve Bannon attorney relayed questions to White House during House interview, was told when not to respond.

Holy Bleep! These people have some stones. I have not read all if this breaks any rules but Holy Bleep!

[Lenonis]

Which...if that's legal, I can't imagine why. Holy shit that's ludicrously blatant corruption.

Certainly, if nothing else, it's likely to catch the attention of the Bar association. I would imagine that lawyer, at the very least, would be sanction if not just flat out disbarred.

[Orbitus]

Certainly, if nothing else, it's likely to catch the attention of the Bar association. I would imagine that lawyer, at the very least, would be sanction if not just flat out disbarred.

Yep, the Whitehouse Counsel Don McGahn has the same lawyer as Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus. So the fact that Don McGahn was telling Bannon and his lawyer what to say, should get both of them disbarred.

[Lynarii]

Look, nothing about that was illegal. Immoral maybe, but not illegal.

Bannon was there on a voluntary basis, therefore he had no legal obligation to answer any question he didn't want to. Getting outside advice, regardless of the source, on which questions he should and shouldn't answer is perfectly legal. If Congress doesn't like it, they can subpoena him and compel him to answer questions, which happens to be exactly what they're doing.

I somewhat suspect that's Bannon's game plan. He wants to talk, but he wants to do so in a way that leaves him blameless and protected from any legal attacks, so he's baiting the investigations into compelling him. That way he gets to talk about everything under the guise of "I had no choice".

[Shadowferal]

Bannon ‘slipped up’ during hearing — and revealed inside information about Trump-Russia meeting: report
Former Trump political strategist Steve Bannon reportedly offered new details about his conversations with fellow Trump administration officials about Donald Trump Jr,’s 2016 meeting with Russian intelligence officials during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
Sources tell Axios that Bannon “made one conspicuous slip up” during his testimony this week where he “admitted that he’d had conversations with Reince Priebus, Sean Spicer and legal spokesman Mark Corallo about Don Junior’s infamous meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower in June 2016.”
This was a key mistake, and sources say that both Republicans and Democrats hammered Bannon for admitting to having these conversations during his time in the White House and then quickly clamming up when asked followup questions about them.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was particularly aggressive with Bannon and grilled him about his description of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russian officials in Trump Tower as “treasonous.”
“Gowdy asked Bannon whether he would consider it treason for somebody close to him to approach Wikileaks’ Julian Assange to get opposition research on Hillary Clinton,” writes Axios reporter Jonathan Swan. “Bannon replied that such a scenario would be bad judgment. Then Gowdy produced emails from a Cambridge Analytica employee — the Trump campaign data firm closely affiliated with Bannon — boasting of just such contacts with Assange.”

[Mormolyce]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...wdown-52397685

So apparently Bannon's lawyer was getting marching orders, or at least relaying information, to the White House during his House Intelligence testimony in real time.

Which...if that's legal, I can't imagine why. Holy shit that's ludicrously blatant corruption.

I mean, if you can ignore the daily train wreck that is Trump for a minute, his Administration is a great illustration of all the holes in the checks and balances in government.

Basically once he's gone, go over his actions with a fine-toothed comb and make sure nobody can do anything that he did ever again. Should take about 500 constitutional amendments but hey, you might get a watertight system of government out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Look, nothing about that was illegal. Immoral maybe, but not illegal.

I expect to see THIS line a lot in 2018 kek.

[apeiron1234]

Just do what the Obama administration did and plead the fifth.

[Orbitus]

Look, nothing about that was illegal. Immoral maybe, but not illegal.

Bannon was there on a voluntary basis, therefore he had no legal obligation to answer any question he didn't want to. Getting outside advice, regardless of the source, on which questions he should and shouldn't answer is perfectly legal. If Congress doesn't like it, they can subpoena him and compel him to answer questions, which happens to be exactly what they're doing.

I somewhat suspect that's Bannon's game plan. He wants to talk, but he wants to do so in a way that leaves him blameless and protected from any legal attacks, so he's baiting the investigations into compelling him. That way he gets to talk about everything under the guise of "I had no choice".

Wrong. When he started doing the whole executive privilege bullshit, he was slapped with a subpoena at the hearing, compelling him to answer questions.

- - - Updated - - -

Just do what the Obama administration did and plead the fifth.

Surprise, surprise, you are lying again.

[Lynarii]

Wrong. When he started doing the whole executive privilege bullshit, he was slapped with a subpoena at the hearing, compelling him to answer questions.

Umm... did you read the last line of the first paragraph you quoted? "If Congress doesn't like it, they can subpoena him and compel him to answer questions, which happens to be exactly what they're doing."

[Thekri]

Holy Bleep! These people have some stones. I have not read all if this breaks any rules but Holy Bleep!

Fun thought... what if Bannon is already wearing a wire. If Mueller wants an obstruction charge...