General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill the four subpoenaed witnesses "take the 5th"?
Or will they claim "executive privilege"?
Or will they answer the Committee's questions?
Or will they challenge the Committee's authority and not even show up?
It's a good bet that the Committee has plenty of questions to ask each of these conspirators. Taking the "5th" will not stop them from asking their questions. It only stops the witness from having to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate him. The same portrait can be painted with or without the witness answering the questions. The viewer will infer what they wish from the questions.
I think we may be getting close to Merrick Garland time?
gojoe12
(92 posts)and what are you talking about?
Response to gojoe12 (Reply #1)
kentuck This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ohioboy
(3,244 posts)Escurumbele
(3,402 posts)The committee issued its first subpoenas on Thursday to Mark Meadows; former Pentagon official and longtime House Intelligence Committee aide Kash Patel; former top White House adviser Steve Bannon; and longtime Trump social media chief Dan Scavino. It marks a turning point in the investigation as lawmakers begin homing in on Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election results.
ananda
(28,876 posts)?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)After that the rest come into play.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)and if the select committee lets this go and doesn't jail them there's no point of any more investigations. If no one has to follow the rules.
ananda
(28,876 posts)Period
gab13by13
(21,402 posts)according to impeachment lawyer Dan Goldman, only president Biden can declare executive privilege. They may try but should not be able. Trump may sue and claim executive privilege and that will have to go through the courts.
I have no idea just my opinion, they will take the 5th.
Not showing up can get them in legal trouble now that Trump's personnel lawyer Bill Barr is gone.
Remember, I am just an internet lawyer, but on the other hand there have been opinions given here by more experienced people who have been wrong, like not to worry about 1/6, it's just a formality.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The court isn't likely to accept his claim - it will more likely rely on Biden's determination of whether the communications should be protected by the privilege, but Trump still has the legal standing as a former president whose communications are at issue to claim the privilege.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...but I could not envision any judge agreeing with the right to hide information through executive privilege if the information is related to such a serious and critical investigation?
He's just blowing smoke and obstructing and delaying the process, it appears?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I don't think any judge will go along with a claim that these communications deserve any protection under executive privilege since the communications at issue had nothing to do with his duties as president and were probably criminal in and of themselves.
ashredux
(2,608 posts)KS Toronado
(17,317 posts)The other 3 will fight tooth & nail not to. IMO
RVN VET71
(2,697 posts)If just one of the four opens up, the floodgates will crack open.
But Butterfield was facing angry senators of both parties. He was in deep and knew that if he withheld information of lied, hed go to prison. Meadows will be looking behind him at the Fat Mans fascist army, already angry that hes even appearing, warning him that even prison is better than what they might do if he squawks.
Well see. I pray youre right.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It still doesn't apply in this case, but a claim of executive privilege for the president's chief of staff is stronger than for the others.
FakeNoose
(32,748 posts)I think Bannon loves being on the hot seat.
He'll talk because he thinks he's smarter than the lawyers.
Joinfortmill
(14,456 posts)BlueJac
(7,838 posts)johnthewoodworker
(694 posts)Democrats will try and fight fascism with antiquated laws like the British tried regular war against guerrilla war fare. Republican/Nazis will never fear, or obey, the law. This Republican/Nazi shit won't be solved in a hundred years. Oh, but democrats will make loud speeches about law.
RVN VET71
(2,697 posts)Now I applaud it.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and how will violating those particular laws help them combat Republican Fascism,?
Please be specific.
Tadpole Raisin
(972 posts)well theres always the Sergeant at Arms. Rs know that in the past there were no consequences. Lets change that.
And if they plead the fifth as is their right but Ds have strong evidence of criminality dont mess around and forward this to DOJ for criminal prosecution. No negotiable, no dragging things out past the midterms so Rs can squash it if they regain control.
Dont know if it would do anything but after the faux outrage some would realize this isnt a game anymore and maybe would cooperate. If not they can spend the next 10-20 years paying off their lawyer.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They can just cite them for contempt and turn it over to DOJ for prosecution
Tadpole Raisin
(972 posts)defy a congressional subpoena. It would raise eyebrows but would get their attention. I was looking at the 1920s Teapot Dome affair. Either way Id like action.
Maybe using Sergeant at Arms is considered outside normal protocol plus at high risk of abuse and possible retribution by Rs later that they wouldnt want to go that route.
I appreciate your patience explaining the law as well to those of us so frustrated we want something done that just cant happen!
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The only reason it came up is an issue a couple of years ago was because the Justice Department wouldn't enforce any of the subpoenas and people were grasping at straws trying to come up with other alternatives for enforcement.
The law regarding the Sergeant-at-Arms' power has changed significantly since the 1920s and they do not have jurisdiction to arrest anyone off the Capitol complex grounds. So unless a recalcitrant witness is wandering around the west front lawn or east front plaza or up and down the halls of one of the House or Senate office buildings, or thereabouts, the Sergeant-at-Arms couldn't lay a hand on them anyway.
The whole "arrest them under inherent contempt" sounds good, but it's not a viable alternative.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)and putting them in a cell in the Capitol building, but that does sound a bit far-fetched, I would agree.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)Will they be held in criminal contempt?
Then, if they did not show up, could they be fined and imprisoned?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Congress can cite them for contempt and then refer it to the U.S. attorney (who, of course reports to Garland) for prosecution for Contempt of Congress.
The U.S. attorney would charge them with contempt and obtain a court order for them to appear. If they still refuse to appear, they are no longer simply in contempt of Congress but are then in contempt of court and the court can either fine them or order the U.S. Marshals to take them into custody until they agree to appear.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Makes sense.
Aviation Pro
(12,186 posts).
keithbvadu2
(36,906 posts)Video
The mob takes the Fifth, Trump said after Hillary Clinton aides invoked their right against self-incrimination. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)That privilege belongs to the current president or the former president whose communications are being sought, in this case, Trump. One or both of them would have to assert it for the privilege to be an excuse to refuse to testify.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)It was destined to end up in court.
But Trump cannot take it to Court if he is not charged? Is that correct?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)As a former president whose communications are being sought, Trump can assert executive privilege, which could result in the issue being litigated in court. But he likely wouldn't bring the case (although he could) - Congress likely would. I think if it does end up in court, it would be resolved VERY quickly so ce having the right to assert the privilege doesn't mean the court will accept it - and I think the court would bounce him out on his butt and fast on this one.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)But Trump and the Republicans have corrupted and abused the justice system more than once. They must consider it their own?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Trump has rarely won a case, even in front of judges he appointed.
Midnight Writer
(21,795 posts)Trump and his people are masters at running out the clock.
I hope you are right and he doesn't get away with it this time.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Trump is in a very different position legally than he was even a year ago. A former president doesn't have the power or resources (financial or official personnel-wise) to gum up the works the way a sitting president can.
But even if litigation on these subpoenas dragged sour, which I don't think will happen, the information sought is not that critical. The committee likely has volumes of evidence and information and doesn't really need the testimony of these four people, who probably won't tell them mich even when they do testify, to get to the bottom of all of this.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Because, like the rest of America, they have become divided by partisan politics, also. At least, that is the perception as I see it.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Just look at the post election cases last year. Those cases moved along very quickly and virtually every one of those courts ruled against Trump.
I think this would be disposed of just as expeditiously.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Of course, AG Barr was in charge then. Let us hope the judicial process moves quickly and does not delay the Committee getting the information they need and justice being done.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Trump was invoking executive privilege, and as the sitting president, that invocation was taken much more seriously by the courts than any attempt he would make now to assert the privilege. I don't think there's any way it would drag out - especially since Biden will likely tell the court that disclosure of those communications will not negatively impact his ability to make decisions or govern.
They will not show up, they don't support democracy or our laws and will just blow them off like all rich white repugs who think they are entitled to do anything and everything they want and that the laws don't apply to them.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)And Merrick Garland explains the rule of law to them?
lark
(23,155 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The U.S. Attorney would handle it.
Although it's a big deal to some of us, this kind of case would be small potatoes to DOJ and would likely be dealt with at the US. Attorney level.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)for a US Attorney to get involved?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Most US attorneys have a great deal of autonomy and don't have to get approval for every case. They often do get approval for very complicated, high profile, or politically prickly cases. But this would be a pretty run-of-the-mill situation - a contempt of Congress citation, while having political overtones, is very straightforward.
But even if Garland needed to approve the prosecution, that would be done behind the scenes - It could be a simple as a phone call between the US Attorney and Garland, or even the DOJ chief of staff. There'd be no need for Garland to get involved publicly.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)from my perspective?
Our democracy may hang in the balance?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But as I said, that's no big deal. That could be done with just a phone call. But Garland is not likely to get publicly involved in this. There's no need for him to and he shouldn't.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)But I could see how it would be that the US Attorneys would only need his stamp of approval to proceed. Unlike Barr, I would not anticipate him blocking the investigation in any way.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's just too small potatoes for the Attorney General to be visible in. The AG needs to reserve his public profile in cases like this for the big fish and more consequential cases. Depressing public know that when the attorney general makes an appearance to discuss a case, it's a BFD. If he's turning up to make public statements about every twist and turn in the case, It would water down the impact of him stepping up to speak on more important issues. Some former presidential confidantes testifying before Congress may be interesting to all of us but it's really not a big deal in the larger legal scheme.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)And he refused?
Would that be a big deal?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Refusing to testify on the basis of a privilege - for example, under the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege - isn't contempt of Congress.
But if you just refuses, that would be grounds for contempt and if referred to the US attorney, I think Garland would definitely be involved in a high-profile way given the unprecedented nature of prosecuting a former president for contempt.
Hotler
(11,445 posts)to soften them up a bit would help their testimony. Remember waterboarding is not torture say Cheney.
Bettie
(16,125 posts)if there's anything we learned in the last four years it is that.
Will Garland enforce a subpoena? Who knows?
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I don't think it will work for very long. A contempt of Congress would be referred to the DOJ, I would suspect.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Bettie
(16,125 posts)they seem to be exempt from every law and norm.
If it happens, good, but my expectations are pretty low at this point.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)It has been damaged in ways we do not yet understand, in my opinion.
Bettie
(16,125 posts)when both sides believe that laws are a thing.
One side believes in laws.
The other side believes that laws don't apply to them. At. All.
And it appears to be true in most cases.
H2O Man
(73,605 posts)It will be a struggle to get them to show up. If one or more does show up, it is by far most likely that they will take the 5th. (In Bannon's case, he'll drink a fifth.) But that's okay. The committee will have the documents, be able to ask pointed questions, and those witnesses will be exposed much like the mob was back in the 1950s, taking the 5th when RFK asked pointed questions.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I'm sure incriminating questions will be asked and they will take the 5th. In some minds, taking the 5th is a sign of guilt, although they have every right to do so.
Bannon is a special kind of nut. He might not take the 5th. He thinks he can outwit them and anyway, he has done nothing wrong. Deny everything and admit nothing.
meow2u3
(24,772 posts)If they testify, they'll be lying like rugs, but if they take the 5th, despite their Constitutional right to do so and the legal presumption of innocence, they'll be convicted in the court of public opinion.
If they thumb their noses at the subpoenas as they did during the tRUmp regime, or if they don't bother to show up, they'll likely face criminal contempt or inherent contempt charges.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Nice encapsulation.