Secret Service said it never happened

[Aldebaran]

Shame he wasn't willing to voluntarily show up an tell the committee this supposed "truthful thing'.

Now he's going to jail. (Sad trombone)

Only because it's impossible to get a fair trial in Washington DC if you're a republican. At least 90% of people who vote in Washington DC vote democratic. So an unbiased jury is impossible to find there. I'm pretty sure they understood that.

 

[JosephZ]

Only because it's impossible to get a fair trial in Washington DC if you're a republican. At least 90% of people who vote in Washington DC vote democratic. So an unbiased jury is impossible to find there. I'm pretty sure they understood that.

Was Bannon subpoenaed to provide his testimony and records by the House select committee in October? Yes.

Did Bannon comply? No.

How else could a jury rule in this case other than guilty?

 

[Aldebaran]

Was Bannon subpoenaed to provide his testimony and records by the House select committee in October? Yes.

Did Bannon comply? No.

How else could a jury rule in this case other than guilty?

When the judge doesn't even allow the defendant to defend himself, and then the jury is made up of at least 90% democrats, what do you expect? Trump adviser Bannon blocked from using key defense in July U.S. trial

 

[Pommer]

When the judge doesn't even allow the defendant to defend himself, and then the jury is made up of at least 90% democrats, what do you expect? Trump adviser Bannon blocked from using key defense in July U.S. trial

Oh boo-hoo, from your link:

Bannon's attorneys hope to argue that he relied on legal advice from his lawyer Robert Costello, who previously advised him that he could not testify or provide records to the panel unless it brokered a deal with Trump or convinced a federal court to agree to waive executive privilege.

1. Executive Privilege ceases after the Executive is no longer the Executive (President)
2. Executive Privilege doesn’t cover all communications with advisors
3. Executive Privilege cannot be used as a blanket to shield a witness from legislative scrutiny and has to be invoked in specific instances
4. Executive Privilege never covers communications that are discussing things that are illegal

 

[essentialsaltes]

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger Say Secret Service Agents Won’t Testify About Jan. 6 Under Oath

 

[Belk]

When the judge doesn't even allow the defendant to defend himself, and then the jury is made up of at least 90% democrats, what do you expect? Trump adviser Bannon blocked from using key defense in July U.S. trial

I expect them to follow the law the same as I would a Republican. Are you claiming it is not possible to be a impartial juror if you are a Democrat?

 

[rambot]

In todays political and social climate the gip strategists know exaclty what to do

Theres no need for substance, no need to pursue facts, you only need to feed the braying masses CRUMBS of a falsehood to discredit the truth. It is thrn unassailable to their party base

Frankly i assumed this was the case since this agent went to a paper and assumed he would never testify.

Its pretty terrible what thr party base is willing to let them get away with, obfuacating it with victimhood.
Secret Service agents disputing Hutchinson refuse to testify: panel

 

[Aldebaran]

I expect them to follow the law the same as I would a Republican. Are you claiming it is not possible to be a impartial juror if you are a Democrat?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is unlikely. When you think about how those who are registered as Democrats actually vote, which is vastly for democratic candidates, how do you believe they will vote in a trial that is politically-motivated? The same could be said for Republicans as well, so if a politically motivated hearing or trial took place in a state that was comprised 90% of Republicans, would you expect someone who identifies as a Democrat to get a fair trial?

 

[Belk]

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it is unlikely. When you think about how those who are registered as Democrats actually vote, which is vastly for democratic candidates, how do you believe they will vote in a trial that is politically-motivated? The same could be said for Republicans as well, so if a politically motivated hearing or trial took place in a state that was comprised 90% of Republicans, would you expect someone who identifies as a Democrat to get a fair trial?

Yes, I would expect them to get a fair trial. I would expect most people, Republican, Democrat, or independent, to make an honest weighing of the evidence presented and try to come to a conclusion based on the law.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I would expect them to get a fair trial. I would expect most people, Republican, Democrat, or independent, to make an honest weighing of the evidence presented and try to come to a conclusion based on the law.

Would you also believe that they would put the constitution first when they passed laws as a political figure in a legislature? In many cases, when congressmen or senators vote on a bill, it is often along party lines. That indicates a distinct separation of values. In a politically motivated hearing or trial, that is often also the case. In fact, the same can be said (and often is) along racial lines. That's why the jury makeup is often cited according to skin color, and also gender. It is generally accepted that these things can influence how someone makes their decisions.

 

[Belk]

Would you also believe that they would put the constitution first when they passed laws as a political figure in a legislature? In many cases, when congressmen or senators vote on a bill, it is often along party lines. That indicates a distinct separation of values. In a politically motivated hearing or trial, that is often also the case. In fact, the same can be said (and often is) along racial lines. That's why the jury makeup is often cited according to skin color, and also gender. It is generally accepted that these things can influence how someone makes their decisions.

Indeed. And I would expect that political ideology would have an influence on how somebody processes evidence and how they would come to a conclusion at a trial. I just do not think it would automatically be decided against someone of the opposite party.

That said if I was a lawyer I would certainly be arguing the exact opposite to stack the odds in my favor as much as possible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Secret Service officials have retained private counsel.

After the Thursday hearing, Lofgren confirmed in a conversation to CNN that those who have retained private counsel, before the criminal probe was announced are, Tony Ornato, who currently serves as the Assistant Director of the United States Secret Service Office of Training

Ornato has retired from the Secret Service, to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. He did not name his new employer.

"I did retire today to pursue a career in the private sector. I retired from the U.S. Secret Service after more than 25 years of faithful service to my country, including serving the past five presidents. I long-planned to retire and have been planning this transition for more than a year," Ornato said in a statement to CNN.

It's not clear whether Ornato will end up testifying related to the claims from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Among the topics Ornato discussed with the [Jan 6] committee [in meetings before Ms Hutchinson's testimony], the source said, were Trump's knowledge of then-Vice President Mike Pence's whereabouts during the attack on the US Capitol and whether Trump could have done more to encourage the rioters to calm down and leave the building.

Ornato's answers to those questions and more have not been revealed by the committee, and members of the panel have expressed frustration with aspects of his testimony, with some suggesting he lacks credibility.

 

[DaisyDay]

When the judge doesn't even allow the defendant to defend himself, and then the jury is made up of at least 90% democrats, what do you expect? Trump adviser Bannon blocked from using key defense in July U.S. trial

There is no defendant yet and this is not a trial. This is a hearing to see what happened. They may refer evidence and/or charges to the DOJ but Congress does not have the authority to hold a criminal trial.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is no defendant yet and this is not a trial. This is a hearing to see what happened. They may refer evidence and/or charges to the DOJ but Congress does not have the authority to hold a criminal trial.

Aldebaran is referring to Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress. The judge in that case disallowed Bannon's use of the "advice of counsel" defense, because there was binding precedent.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit bars such a defense in contempt of Congress cases, and turned aside arguments from Bannon’s attorneys that the case was no longer binding.

Nichols pointed to the 1961 case Licavoli v. United States, which found that “Advice of counsel cannot immunize a deliberate, intentional failure to appear pursuant to a lawful subpoena lawfully served.”

 

[DaisyDay]

Aldebaran is referring to Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress. The judge in that case disallowed Bannon's use of the "advice of counsel" defense, because there was binding precedent.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit bars such a defense in contempt of Congress cases, and turned aside arguments from Bannon’s attorneys that the case was no longer binding.

Nichols pointed to the 1961 case Licavoli v. United States, which found that “Advice of counsel cannot immunize a deliberate, intentional failure to appear pursuant to a lawful subpoena lawfully served.”

Thanks, I missed that.