Three weeks is very fast, traditionally, for the DoJ, especially for something that can look politically motivated.
But these are not traditional times. Garland is stuck between trying to return the department to ‘normalcy’ and taking actions that will best preserve what’s left of our democracy.
There did not used to be a conflict between those goals and many would argue a careful, considered approach is best in the normal course of affairs (which of course includes an opposition that at least pays lip service to the idea we live in a democracy), but these are not normal times and Garland hasn’t fully twigged to that.
The judge’s decision that Trump can’t suppress all those documents may well have a bearing on the Bannon subpoena case. Trump argued both on the grounds of his imagined perpetual executive privilege. The judge ruled that Trump doesn’t control executive privilege now that he’s not president. That could mean there’s no longer any argument for defying subpoenas on the name of executive privilege either. Let’s hope that this gives Garland the cue he’s been waiting for.
This is as optimistic a take as I think I could manage. However, I wonder what the committee’s response will be when those called to testify revert to: Fuck you, I’m just not coming in. Oh, and if I do come in, I’m not saying anything.
I forsee that coming next.
If I were them, I’d mock them for having less courage than Hillary Clinton. Since most of them are toxic men, I might even phrase it as, “What happened to your balls, boy? HRC has bigger ones than all y’all put together.”
Mark Meadows will likely be the next test of the DOJ’s newly-revealed policy of supporting Legislative branch power-to-subpoena (without being ignored).
I have to say that aside from schadenfreude for Bannon, my overwhelming reaction was one of RELIEF. Perhaps…just perhaps…there is some hope for the rule of law, after all…???
Well, it was either get it into the courts or do nothing. I prefer the former. The case against Bannon is pretty simple. He was subpoenaed. He didn’t show or produce documents. AIUI, the Executive Privilege argument is baseless. Expedite the whole thing. Deny requests for postponements. The stakes are too high to let it time out.
And it may persuade others to testify rather than refuse. But what concerns me about the Jan 6th committee is the clock running out. But as MikeF noted: “nothing” is not an option.
I think this Don Winslow has it all wrong. The issues behind January 6 are not going into the courts, which seems to be what he is saying. He seems in fact to have several points wrong.
Bannon’s court case will not be long and drawn out. The only point at issue is whether Congress had jurisdiction to subpoena him and his documents.
The very likely resolution of that is that yes, Congress does have that authority, and since Bannon publicly refused to cooperate, ipso facto, guilty.
The combination of judicial confirmation that Congress has the authority to subpoena people and documents about January 6, and DOJ’s willingness to prosecute that crime, is the two-pronged attack that will see a lot more cooperation among other witnesses than would otherwise be the case. Or, as MikeF said, it was either this or do nothing. These steps represent the only teeth that Congress has in this kind of investigation.
I wonder what Mr. Winslow would have had Congress do instead?
I think Bannon’s indictment smacks of Mueller’s Report, which a lot of people thought would finally nail Trump, but it was all sound and fury signifying nothing. Somehow the political molasses won’t amount to anything substantive and Bannon knows it.