You kill me. 
Why should these evil, sinister, and unpatriotic people be allowed to hurt and destroy the lives of so many, and cause such great harm to our Country?
Indeed, Donnie, but I think my list of “these evil, sinister, and unpatriotic people,” does not match yours.
Yes, I understand all that and even share your speculation.
Perhaps my question should have been more general, can anyone be compelled to testify in a criminal trial/hearing (not sure of terminology or actually even what the difference is).
I have heard of witnesses being compelled to testify but it always seems to be in connection to Grand Jury testimony and seems to automatically invoke immunity (at least in some cases?). I am wondering if down the road Bannon can be ordered to testify because fifth amendment only applies to SELF incrimination.
In addition to Trump, I was thinking of Flynn, or even Roger Stone. You seem to regard Bannon about the way I consider Clark (we agree on Bannon- I just lump Clark and Eastman in with him).
If the DOJ wanted testimony to hang Trump or other cronies of his, they may offer Bannon a deal to get Bannon’s testimony. The January 6th Hearings are my favorite sport right now, cannot wait for the next one. But aside from changing public perception they are pretty toothless (as I said before- I doubt they will even pass many laws to protect against future corruption). Department of Justice Trials or Hearings ARE likely to make a real difference however.
I forgot to mention the Jan. 5th “War Room”.
I do not believe they have a single witness from inside the room. Although if Meadows is cooperating with DOJ, they may have input from someone who called into the meeting (a zoom meeting to overthrow the results of an election- technology is amazing these days!). The war room meeting might be the single most important aspect, unless Bannon spills the beans on other matters.
Aside from knowledge that it happened- - do we know anything about what went on in that hotel on January 5th? Do we even know all the participants? We do know a few of the usual suspects were there, correct?
This just in.
…
On that day in June, the caller told Ms. Hutchinson, as Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chairwoman, later disclosed: A person “let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal. And you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”At Ms. Hutchinson’s deposition the next day, committee members investigating the attack on the Capitol were so alarmed by what they considered a clear case of witness tampering — not to mention Ms. Hutchinson’s shocking account of President Donald J. Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6, 2021 — that they decided in a meeting on June 24, a Friday, to hold an emergency public hearing with Ms. Hutchinson as the surprise witness the following Tuesday.
The speed, people close to the committee said, was for two crucial reasons: Ms. Hutchinson was under intense pressure from Trump World, and panel members believed that getting her story out in public would make her less vulnerable, attract powerful allies and be its own kind of protection. The committee also had to move fast, the people said, to avoid leaks of some of the most explosive testimony ever heard on Capitol Hill.
…
Small fish are sometimes granted immunity in order to compel testimony against big fish. Once they have immunity they can’t be prosecuted. Protection against self-incrimination no longer applies. They can’t plead the fifth. They can be punished for refusing to answer questions.
I’m sure you understand that the Fifth Amendment is all about not being compelled to testify against your own interests and/or to incriminate yourself. So no, no one can be “compelled” to testify in exchange for nothing. But they may choose to, if an offer is made – which it may not be.
Yes, Bannon can be subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and can be prosecuted if he fails to comply with the subpoena. It would be much like the situation he’s in now with having defied the congressional subpoena. If he shows up, he can still invoke the Fifth if he feels he would be in legal jeopardy as a result of his testimony to the grand jury.
In reality, prosecutors don’t like to waste grand jurors’ time with endless repetitions of a witness taking the Fifth, so they would most likely grab up Bannon on charges ahead of any grand jury proceeding to determine his, uh, eagerness to comply as a witness in another case, such as one against Trump.
It’s good to keep in mind that millions of defendants have been arrested, tried and convicted with no offer of immunity in exchange for testimony or any other consideration. Prosecutors are under no obligation to make offers; defendants are under no obligation to accept them if they are made. And that’s a big ‘if.’
Police gather their evidence with an eye to prosecution and prosecutors don’t like to bring charges unless they have a good case. Sometimes that requires the defendant’s input, but often it does not. If a case is good enough, it may be tried without any input at all from the defendant to the police or prosecutors.
There are many factors that go into a prosecutor’s decision to make an offer that lessens a sentence. One is if the prosecutor believes there is someone higher up who is actually more responsible for the criminal act than the person sitting in front of them. In such a case, the prosecutor may choose to make a deal with the defendant – which the defendant is entirely free to turn down. The prosecutor may offer a lesser sentence to the defendant in exchange for the defendant’s testimony against someone higher up in the organization. That’s the situation we’re most likely looking at with Bannon, Flynn and Stone.
Keep in mind that Stone has repudiated his subpoena and is not going to appear before the Committee. Discussion of his testimony against Trump falls into the “speculative” category and isn’t a subject for this thread at this time.
However – in the cases of each of these three, I think they only flip if they are facing significant prison time for their own crimes. If the prosecutors have good enough evidence (and I believe they will), they can prosecute each of these men without their cooperation at all. Each defendant will have to decide if an offer of a lesser sentence makes it worth testifying against Trump.
Here’s a possible scenario: Bannon comes and testifies privately to the Committee and takes the Fifth a few thousand times. That doesn’t really mean anything to the Committee except that they aren’t going to use his testimony in public.
But to the DOJ, it means they’ll likely need to built their case against Bannon without his cooperation. That’s ok; they do this all the time.
The day comes when they arrest Bannon for seditious conspiracy. They don’t interview him, because they have the testimony of, say, Stewart Rhodes, stating that Bannon was the Oath Keepers’ direct contact for the insurrection plot.
Then Mark Meadows testifies against Bannon, saying he witnessed Bannon meeting periodically with Trump to discuss the Oath Keepers’ role in the insurrection plot and he, Meadows, was a witness to these discussions.
Meadows is a direct witness. Rhodes is a direct witness. No testimony from Bannon required. No need to offer a reduced sentence in exchange for Bannon’s testimony.
So if Bannon knows there are witnesses to his crimes such as Rhodes and Meadows, and knows also that those are both going to cooperate with DOJ in a case against him, he may want to offer his testimony of direct conversations with Trump in exchange for a lesser sentence. He’s going to be successfully prosecuted either way, so he may as well use the little bit of leverage he has.
My personal view is that the witnesses best positioned to testify against Trump are the people at the top of his administration: Meadows, Cipollone, Clark and Eastman. Bannon, Flynn and Stone are hostile and not reliable. I don’t think they’re going to receive much consideration.
Hope this helps understand the process. I’d rather not get any further afield into process discussions in this thread, though.
The testimony to date by Hutchinson disclosed that Meadows was aware of the War Room meeting on January 5th and intended to phone in rather than attend in person, though it sounds like he wanted to appear in person.
Hutchinson also testified that Meadows told her (so, hearsay) that members of the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers were supposed to be there, as well as Stone, Bannon and Flynn (I think?). My memory on this point is a little hazy.
We’ve heard no direct evidence about the War Room meeting yet. Probably on Tuesday, possibly from Cipollone. But until then, we’re again getting into speculation and I’d rather we didn’t.
If Meadows was “in the room” via Zoom, that would be considered direct evidence for purposes of DOJ prosecution. If Meadows is cooperating with DOJ, and we don’t know for sure that he is.
Thank you for the full explanation in your replies, no need to go further afield on my account. At this point we are only a few days from having some fresh meat to dig into with a new hearing.
You also inadvertently reminded me of a nagging question and caused me to recall that there is a place, according to the talking head lawyers on cable news, where someone can be compelled to testify. Even though I mentioned both Flynn and Stone above, when I saw your mention of Stone I recalled that if one has been pardoned for a crime-- there is no longer any fifth amendment protection because they have already been tried, convicted, and pardoned so those individuals can be compelled to testify (but on that matter only). The fifth is not an option for anyone in that situation because they cannot be harmed by giving testimony.
I remembered the phrase, but not the context so I was trying to recall the details for a fuller understanding. Being compelled to testify does not apply to anyone connected with January 6th Hearings.
Alas, not quite entirely sorry for the distraction because I remembered some valuable information – and others may have learned or relearned something too; I will give a hardy thanks for indulging the questions however. Thanks.
Don’t really know if I want to resurrect a two+ year old thread, and as this is the most relevant thread dealing with Trump’s legal problems, figured y’all would enjoy this breakthrough on the NY Attorney General case re: Trump’s real estate valuations and potential tax fraud therein. In short, all legal issues have been resolved and the documents, Trump’s real estate transaction records, will be delivered Wednesday.
We have a day until the J6C re-convenes, here’s a small thing to enjoy:
She is really quite an impressive young woman as this article further demonstrates. First in her family to attend college, and she sort of became like Forrest Gump, always standing in the doorway when history was happening. Besides access to Meadows and Trump (Meadows had senior staff bumped from Air Force One so she could make the travel squad), she was an intern for Rep. Steve Scalise when he was shot playing softball (I thought it was baseball?) and apparently is on a first name basis with most Republican House Members.
And now, in payment for her dedication, strong work ethic, and patriotism, she has powerful people and MAGA mobs slandering and targeting her. Best wishes Ms. Hutchinson, you have earned my respect and admiration.
Thanks for the article.
This does make me feel warm and fuzzy! Thank you.
For those who are afraid the DOJ isn’t doing anything.
(Gift link)
…
But Mr. Garland’s message has always been clear: The Justice Department investigates crimes, not people.Earlier this year, in a speech marking the first anniversary of the riot, Mr. Garland acknowledged, and dismissed, the criticisms. “We understand that there are questions about how long the investigation will take, and about what exactly we are doing,” he said.
His answer: “As long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done — consistent with the facts and the law.”
…
And to this point… remember this guy? He’s suddenly remembering some things he may have been unclear about earlier and wants to tell the committee, post-haste.
A polite request in general: if the tweet is just a link to an article, could you post the article link directly instead of the tweet?
Article from CNN
“Byrne played an active role supporting efforts to question and push baseless claims about the 2020 election, including attending a meeting in mid-December at the White House to discuss strategies to overturn the election. That meeting with Trump also included former national security adviser Michael Flynn and his lawyer Sidney Powell, as well as some White House staff. It focused on ideas to block Joe Biden’s certification as president and discussed the prospect of seizing voting machines. White House officials in the meeting pushed back at the ideas in heated exchanges, CNN previously reported.”
What time is today’s hearing supposed to begin? I had been seeing 10:00 ET as the published time (07:00 PDT) so I dragged myself out of bed just for this.
Now I just now (06:43) tuned in to the PBS feed on YouTube and it’s telling me that the show begins in 2 hours! WTF? I’ve got an appointment later today! If they’ve pushed the time back a couple hours, I’m going to have to miss a chunk of it!
(I suppose, in the meantime, I just have to tune in to the NASA pic dump.)
Has anyone seen any updates as to the Committee schedule today?
ETA: Well shit. I just found an announcement on CNET: They’re starting at 13:00 ET, or 10:00 PDT. Is this what everyone else here is seeing?
Byrne has written extensively - and pretentiously about his involvement in the efforts to overturn the election results. It’s worth noting that Byrne caught the election fraud psychosis before it was fashionable, he’s been blathering about this stuff for 15 years or so.
I’ve posted this before, but here’s a link to his extensive blatherings, with my commentary. It’s not an. easy read, but it’s pretty funny - plus he describes events I haven’t seen publicly reported anywhere, like a field trip to Georgia to illegally tamper with voting machines.
I found this insane document written by Patrick Byrne - insane former owner of overstock.com and ex-boyfriend of Russian spy Maria Butina - it always seems to come back to Russia, doesn’t it.
It’s this weird autobiographical account of his efforts to overthrow the 2020 election, a piece of bizarro world fan fiction. Sidney Powell is a brilliant lawyer, Michael Flynn is a genius strategist, Trump is an organized and effective businessman with heart and Rudy……well Rudy is a blithering drunken idiot in all universes, I guess.
It’s very long, and broken into chapters. I’ve included a separate link to each chapter. If you don’t think you’ll be inclined to read the whole thing, jump to Chapter 3. You have to read it to believe it, it’s insanely pretentious - upon entering the White House with Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn, he says
”I was the last one through and as they (the Secret Service manning the checkpoint) handed my ID back to me one leaned in and said quietly and intimately “Thank you, Mr. Byrne”. I was surprised, and it was the first time I understood that in the constellation of Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell, there was a faint little star of my own.
In Chapter One How DJT Lost the White House, Chapter 1: All the President’s Teams (11/3 – 12/17) – Deep Capture Our heroes join up with Rudy Guiliani’s effort to expose the fraud, which they eventually find despite the bumbling of Rudy and some person that Byrne HATES whom he refers to only as Mediocrity. I’m pretty sure it’s Jenna Ellis.
New fun fact - previously undisclosed, I think - Rudy called Sidney and Patrick Byrne and told them to fly to Georgia and tamper with some voting machines he’d managed to get his hands on. But when they got to Georgia, someone just drove them around from precinct to precinct - continually promising them paperwork and voting machines at the next stop. This went in for a ridiculously long amount of time, until they saw a heavy police response heading to the building they’d just left. Then they went home.
Chapter Two
is a gish-gallop of technobabble that purports to be evidence of international fraud. I recommend not bothering. All I got out of this was that he finds it nefarious that Dominion Voting has a commercial website.
Chapter Three
Having found the fraud, our heroes get frustrated that no one will listen to them. They cleverly talk their way into the White House ( seriously, someone should look into this, they had inside help) without an appointment and make it into Trump’s office, where they present their plan for exposing the fraud and vindicating Trump. There they do battle with evil White House lawyers who are secretly trying to get Trump to succeed.
I recommend reading this chapter first.
Fun fact : They DOD succeed in getting Trump to appoint Sidney Powell as special counsel. Really. White House staff slow-walked it until it went away but Trump actually made the appointment. Fun fact 2 - Trump invited Byrne and company upstairs to the residence for meatballs. This was the high point of Byrnes life.
Chapter Four -
The heroes hit the road for a Mar-a-Largo Christmas, which they mostly spend outside Mar-a-Largo trying to get in. But a security guard recognized Patrick Byrne and thanked him for helping to overthrow the election as they escorted him off the property.
Then there’s more fraud finding and an FBI cover-up. It ends on January 6th, as our frustrated heroes finally realize that Trump doesn’t get that this isn’t about him.
Chapter Five -
The January 6th insurrection was totally staged, maybe by antifa did it. But our heroes gave it one last shot, meeting Rudy and Friends one last time and giving him their secret plan to overturn the election again. But Rudy (or someone else at the meeting) gave Byrne a going away present -Covid- and by the time he got better Biden was President.
And there’s a chapter six, in which Byrne whines about the illegitimate President and the Constitution- I think. I don’t think anyones ever managed to read this far,
So let me get this straight - he’s impressed that the person who just checked his ID, the person whose job it is to confirm the identity of everyone about to enter one of the most secure areas in the world - knows his name?
Yeah, I’m impressed!
As opined in a Raw Story article I saw yesterday: The fact that Cipollone sang to the Committee (although nobody knows for sure just what his lyrics were), is likely to encourage others to play too:
I can understand that these schedules are difficult and that new information may alter the content and cause delays, but I hate that it gives my Republican friends an opportunity to say – these partisan Democrats can’t even schedule a meeting time, why should I trust them to be impartial?? (I also hate that I could not give a straight answer to the few who agreed to watch and asked when to tune in.)
Cannot wait to read this, I love watching team Trump confess to their crimes in public.
The king of this type of witness has to be Barr. After all of his dealings in the Administration, he got out at just the right moment, right after being on record criticizing the overtly criminal and questionable actions, and then wrote a book where he was the hero trying to talk the president down – and finished by completely cooperating with the committee and giving them exactly the quotes they wanted (and seemed to manage to do it without throwing anyone except Trump under the bus).
Funny that his testimony did little to motivate other witnesses, but Hutchinson and Cipollone’s testimony did create a wave of cooperators.