# A Perfectly Reasonable Amount of Schadenfreude about Things Happening to Trump & His Enablers (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2020, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537 "2020-11-14T00:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 171
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2021, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3405 "2021-11-13T21:12:43Z")
Banning wasn’t elected. Why would he be covered by executive privilege? ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2021, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3406 "2021-11-13T21:36:02Z")
I never said Bannon was. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2021, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3407 "2021-11-13T21:55:46Z")
Bannon thinks he is covered by Trumps executive privilege, perhaps because he thinks Trump is still King. Bannon and the rest of the ilk are really deranged. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3408 "2021-11-14T00:11:40Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > … I wonder what Mr. Winslow would have had Congress do instead? I haven’t been able to find confirmation, but I seem to recall that Winslow\* was one of those who argued that the Jan 6 Committee should have charged Bannon with either civil or inherent contempt, instead of with criminal contempt. Those who’ve argued for civil or inherent have done so on the basis of ‘time spent waiting for courts to act.’ Here’s an excerpt from a write-up (by a constitutional-law prof) on some of the nuances: > [@](#): > > … If a target of a congressional investigation refuses to comply with a subpoena, Congress can hold the individual in contempt. There are three forms of contempt – inherent, civil and criminal – each of which relies on a different branch of government for enforcement. > > Congress has its own power to enforce a subpoena. However, to use that power, Congress has to conduct a trial and then find the individual in contempt. Because this process is lengthy and cumbersome, Congress has not used it since the 1930s. > > Congress can also ask the courts to declare an individual in contempt. Known as civil contempt, this method requires a resolution authorizing a congressional committee or the House general counsel’s office to file a civil lawsuit. The courts then determine whether Congress has the right to the information it has demanded. > > Congress used this power in the past three presidential administrations – Bush, Obama and Trump – to acquire information. > > However, civil contempt is also slow moving. For example, Congress held Attorney General Eric Holder in civil contempt in 2012 for withholding information relating to Operation Fast and Furious, a Department of Justice policy that allowed certain illegal gun sales in order to track Mexican drug cartels. Congress eventually obtained some records, but it took seven years for courts to reach a settlement. > > The last form of contempt relies on the executive branch – specifically the Department of Justice and U.S. attorneys – for enforcement. If someone refuses to testify or produce documents, a congressional committee can first cite the individual in criminal contempt and then ask its chamber of Congress to adopt a resolution affirming the committee’s decision. After that resolution, the Department of Justice and U.S. attorneys decide whether to pursue the matter in court. > > Criminal contempt is what the House used in the Bannon case. > **[Steve Bannon is held in criminal contempt of Congress, pushing key question...](https://www.yahoo.com/now/steve-bannon-held-criminal-contempt-123747304.html)** > > U.S. Reps. Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, chair and vice chair of the committee investigating the Capitol insurrection, after voting to hold Steve Bannon in criminal contempt. Alex Wong/Getty ImagesEvery president in history has refused to disclose... > \*Don Winslow is a novelist (crime thrillers, mainly) who is very active on Twitter, and who posts there some highly-effective short videos on political matters, such as: > ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3409 "2021-11-14T06:24:55Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > I never said Bannon was. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else? Just thinking out loud I suppose. Wasn’t really directed at your comment. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3410 "2021-11-14T06:57:57Z")
Something I don’t understand here. There’s all this fuss about whether Bannon was or wasn’t an elected official, and whether he was or wasn’t actually working for Trump around the time of the insurrection, and what effect that has on Trump’s claim of executive privilege. I don’t get that. The whole idea of executive privilege is that the President should be able to get advice and consultation secretly or anonymously, so that those consulting with him can give their uninhibited opinions without fear of repercussions later. If that’s the purpose of executive privilege, then what does it matter whether the consultant is an elected official or not, or whether he was on payroll at the time, or in what capacity he was giving advice? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3411 "2021-11-14T07:13:15Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > If that’s the purpose of executive privilege, then what does it matter whether the consultant is an elected official or not, or whether he was on payroll at the time, or in what capacity he was giving advice? IANAL, but AIUI “executive privilege” claims require balancing the need to protect confidentiality against the need to administer justice. Some kinds of confidential communication should be more inviolate than others. Executive privilege confidentiality is respected in order to let the President do his job via frank communication with his advisers. Not via, for example, consulting fortune-tellers or getting unofficial tips from cronies with no official position. Not even if the President happens to feel that the advice of his fortune-tellers or his cronies is very important in his decision-making. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3412 "2021-11-14T07:21:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > IANAL, but AIUI “executive privilege” claims require balancing the need to protect confidentiality against the need to administer justice. Some kinds of confidential communication should be more inviolate than others. This part I definitely get, the important criterion being the need to balance confidentiality versus the need to administer justice (or as it’s sometime put, the greater needs of the Nation). But does that criterion have anything to do with who is giving the president that advice? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Executive privilege confidentiality is respected in order to let the President do his job via frank communication with his advisers. Not via, for example, consulting fortune-tellers or getting unofficial tips from cronies with no official position. Thus, the question: Are there established rules as to who can advise the president in confidentiality? We all know that Trump was a one-man swampmaster of cronyism. But what are the rules over executive privilege? I’m not aware of any body of statutory law on the matter, and it’s not mentioned in the Constitution that I know of. It seems just to be an entrenched custom that goes back all the way to George Washington. The more relevant argument here, as far as I know, is simply that Trump isn’t president (no matter what Trump says), and Joe Biden is, and executive privilege belongs to the president to wield (or not) as he sees fit, not to Citizen Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3413 "2021-11-14T07:26:09Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > But what are the rules over executive privilege? I’m not aware of any body of statutory law on the matter Me either, and AFAICT it’s a heavily contested subject even among experts. But the notion that EP confidentiality should be restricted to official executive-branch communications, and not include just any loose-lipped schmoozing that the Chief Exec feels like indulging in but then doesn’t want anyone to know about, seems like a pretty commonsensical principle to my naive non-lawyer mind. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3414 "2021-11-14T07:30:05Z")
Seems eminently sensible to me. It seems odd that in the 140+ years of this republic, nothing has ever been codified into the laws about executive privilege. Thus, the tradition is open to controversy over just who can consult with the president confidentially, as well as just how much privilege a former president can claim to control. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2021, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3415 "2021-11-14T07:56:08Z")
I think that’s always been considered a feature, not a bug. There is a fear about defining it too much, because then it might restrict the President from doing something urgently that he (or she) needs to do while maintaining necessary confidentiality. And from a political perspective, defining it neuters the power of your party’s leader, or will once you elect someone. Here is a simple but interesting article about executive privilege: > **[President Trump Invoked Executive Privilege. Here's the History of That...](https://time.com/5605930/executive-privilege-history/)** > > From George Washington to Richard Nixon to today It seems to me that it’s like inflation. Over time it slowly increases and it’s practically inevitable, though you can try to manage it somewhat. Executive privilege seems to get added onto with each successive administration; sometimes in small ways, sometimes in huge ways, as different Presidents push the boundary more and more. But putting a cap on it would be like putting a hard cap on the economy’s inflation, and while either is theoretically possible, doing so can also be disastrous. Just as the Federal Reserve has tools that they use to carefully manage inflation to keep it from going out of hand, so does the Judicial Branch have the means to curb executive privilege from reaching too far, as they did when Nixon tried to exert it during the Watergate scandal to suppress evidence of his criminal activity. That failed and Nixon resigned shortly after. I guess the main reason why it hasn’t been put into law is because for 140+ years the republic has gotten by just fine that way, and so it doesn’t need to. And as history shows, indefinite isn’t the same as infinite; the indefinite power of executive privilege doesn’t mean it can extend to anything and everything. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3416 "2021-11-15T15:00:34Z")
I 'm sure that what I’m feeling right now is a _perfectly_ reasonable amount of schadenfreude: > **[Trump ally Bannon talks tough after court appearance](https://apnews.com/article/steve-bannon-donald-trump-mark-meadows-congress-subpoenas-5bd5638acb5d93bd8478f57f2b177ded)** > > WASHINGTON (AP) — Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon appeared before a judge on Monday to face criminal contempt charges for defying a subpoena from Congress' Jan. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3417 "2021-11-15T15:09:19Z")
This is nice, too: > **[Investment group purchases Trump hotel in DC and is expected to remove Trump...](https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/politics/trump-organization-washington-dc-hotel-sale/index.html)** > > The Trump Organization has reached a deal with the investment fund CGI Merchant Group to purchase the lease for the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, for $375 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3418 "2021-11-15T15:28:22Z")
Please, oh, please, let them film it, kind of like [this](https://youtu.be/FTodK24KG6E?t=44). ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3419 "2021-11-15T15:31:22Z")
> The Trump ally tells reporters before turning himself in to authorities: ‘We’re taking down the Biden regime.’ He sounds like the former Iraqi propaganda guy - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (AKA Baghdad Bob) ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3420 "2021-11-15T16:20:37Z")
If anything, Bob had more credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3421 "2021-11-15T17:21:28Z")
May this portend many perp walks to come. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3422 "2021-11-15T17:35:21Z")
Preach it! ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3423 "2021-11-15T17:55:49Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > May this portend many perp walks to come. I expect that he’ll say that his lawyer told him that he could ignore the summons and he - a non-lawyer - should not be sent to jail for listening to his lawyer’s advice. And, of course, he will also make the argument that his lawyer’s advice was correct. Usually, the DOJ would agree to a compromise like that Bannon will be allowed off the hook if he testifies and produces all documents. As it is, he may well fight it up to the Supreme Court, which means that in roughly a year, the Supreme Court tells him that he must testify and produce all documents or go to jail. At that point, he’ll produce evidence and go Fifth Amendment for most other things. Through all of this, his lawyers bills are being paid for by others and the dude is laughing about his ability to troll everyone for a year. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2021, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/3424 "2021-11-15T18:50:29Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I expect that he’ll say that his lawyer told him that he could ignore the summons and he - a non-lawyer - should not be sent to jail for listening to his lawyer’s advice. "Then, Mr. Bannon, I suggest you contemplate hiring a better lawyer while you’re sitting in your jail cell. “Next case.” I can only imagine how long that defense would last if the lawyer in question gets hauled in for giving bum advice. “No, your honor, I never told my… _ex_-client such a thing. He is lying.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537.md?page=170) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537.md?page=172)