How To Keep Bannon Out Of jail

[Rightguide]

Here’s How GOP Leadership Can Keep Bannon Out of Jail… If They Want To.​

House Republican leadership can use a little-known congressional mechanism to render the contempt of Congress charges against former Trump advisors Stephen K. Bannon and Peter Navarro moot. Speaker Mike Jonnson (R-LA) can use the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to file an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declaring that the Democrat-run January 6 Committee was improperly constituted and thus had no subpoena authority.

This argument was first advanced by Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, and expanded on by Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz in an appearance on Tim Pool this week.

“I believe the only way Steve Bannon does not go to jail is if there is a vote at an entity called the BLAG—the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,” Gaetz said, adding: “It is made up of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and the Minority Whip. So the Republicans hold a three-two in this.”

“Bannon is going to petition for an en banc review of this determination to revoke his bail. When he does, I believe the BLAG should—and will—take a three to two vote for the House to seek to leave to file an amicus brief with the en banc court that the January 6 Committee was illegitimate,” the Flordia Republican added.

More here: https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/0...-can-keep-bannon-out-of-jail-if-they-want-to/

The question is, will it happen? There is some merit to the argument.

 

[ll74]

It won't happen, nor should it. Retroactively declaring that previous Congresses didn't have the authority is stupid.

 

[DeluxAuto]

What's with the G00p trying to keep criminals out of prison? The party of law and order. Lmao

 

[Rightguide]

It won't happen, nor should it. Retroactively declaring that previous Congresses didn't have the authority is stupid.

Under House rules the Committee was improperly constituted. Nancy should have amended the rules.

 

[Bn2f]

Here’s How GOP Leadership Can Keep Bannon Out of Jail… If They Want To.​

Kudos to you.
Your skill at finding the obscure on the internet to confirm your bias is unmatched.

 

[ll74]

Under House rules the Committee was improperly constituted. Nancy should have amended the rules.

Yes, I get that you believe this will happen.

The committee was legitimate and had the authority.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, I get that you believe this will happen.

The committee was legitimate and had the authority.

I don't believe it will happen is the point. That was the point of my question in post #1. But the facts of the matter are real.

 

[ll74]

I don't believe it will happen is the point. That was the point of my question in post #1. But the facts of the matter are real.

You claimed that at the start and you weren't correct then either.

 

[Rightguide]

You claimed that at the start and you weren't correct then either.

But I am correct, notwithstanding your misunderstanding of reality. The principle of legislative supremacy means that one Congress cannot entirely bind a future Congress in its legislative capacity. In other words, a future Congress has the authority to repeal or amend laws passed and findings arrived at by previous Congresses, though this may have political and practical ramifications, Congress has every right to declare it was wrong.

 

[ll74]

But I am correct, notwithstanding your misunderstanding of reality. The principle of legislative supremacy means that one Congress cannot entirely bind a future Congress in its legislative capacity. In other words, a future Congress has the authority to repeal or amend laws passed and findings arrived at by previous Congresses, though this may have political and practical ramifications, Congress has every right to declare it was wrong.

The courts have ruled differently already. The committee and its makeup was valid and had the authority.

This Congress does not have the authority to change the past.

 

[Gamine67]

But, but, but the shitbags belong in jail.

Why bother?

 

[Rightguide]

The courts have ruled differently already. The committee and its makeup was valid and had the authority.

This Congress does not have the authority to change the past.

BS. Show me a court ruling on House rules that would impact what I'm posting.

 

[ll74]

BS. Show me a court ruling on House rules that would impact what I'm posting.

The RNC challenged the Jan 6 committee and lost. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/subpoena-rnc-records-capitol-riot-00029265

They were legitimate and there's no way a current Congress can delegitimize a past Congress committee. Not going to happen.

 

[schism666]

What's with the G00p trying to keep criminals out of prison? The party of law and order. Lmao

traitors gotta trait.

 

[Rightguide]

The RNC challenged the Jan 6 committee and lost. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/subpoena-rnc-records-capitol-riot-00029265

They were legitimate and there's no way a current Congress can delegitimize a past Congress committee. Not going to happen.

That does not fit the present situation now that the House has changed hands. Your assertion that one Congress cannot overrule a past Congress is ludicrous. A simple search:

Each new Congress has the authority to change its own rules, procedures, or committee rulings. The United States Constitution provides that each “House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” which means that a new Congress is not bound by the rules of proceedings of the previous Congress1. This allows for the flexibility and adaptability of the legislative process over time. If you’re interested in this topic, I can help you find books or resources that delve deeper into congressional procedures and history. Would you like to explore these materials?
Learn more
1en.wikipedia.org2brennancenter.org3crsreports.congress.gov4en.wikipedia.org5crsreports.congress.gov+4 more

 

[ll74]

That does not fit the present situation now that the House has changed hands. Your assertion that one Congress cannot overrule a past Congress is ludicrous. A simple search:

Congress's past authority isn't retroactively changed due to new makeup. This is funny.

Congress can make legislation that.amenda or changes past legislation....but it has never negated previous committees before and this ludicrous to believe it would do so now, especially since it's incredibly disfunctional.

Each new Congress has the authority to change its own rules, procedures, or committee rulings. The United States Constitution provides that each “House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” which means that a new Congress is not bound by the rules of proceedings of the previous Congress1. This allows for the flexibility and adaptability of the legislative process over time. If you’re interested in this topic, I can help you find books or resources that delve deeper into congressional procedures and history. Would you like to explore these materials?
Learn more
1en.wikipedia.org2brennancenter.org3crsreports.congress.gov4en.wikipedia.org5crsreports.congress.gov+4 more

It can change current rules. It cannot change past rules retroactively. The rules of each Congress are only applied to their iteration unless carried forward to future House rules.

 

[ll74]

That does not fit the present situation now that the House has changed hands. Your assertion that one Congress cannot overrule a past Congress is ludicrous. A simple search:

Each new Congress has the authority to change its own rules, procedures, or committee rulings. The United States Constitution provides that each “House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” which means that a new Congress is not bound by the rules of proceedings of the previous Congress1. This allows for the flexibility and adaptability of the legislative process over time. If you’re interested in this topic, I can help you find books or resources that delve deeper into congressional procedures and history. Would you like to explore these materials?
Learn more
1en.wikipedia.org2brennancenter.org3crsreports.congress.gov4en.wikipedia.org5crsreports.congress.gov+4 more

Here's a question - if this supports the argument, then what's the point of stability of our government and our standing overall in anything? Democrats could easily retake Congress and then retroactively decide Newt Gingrich wasn't a valid speaker.

Why not!

 

[Rightguide]

Here's a question - if this supports the argument, then what's the point of stability of our government and our standing overall in anything? Democrats could easily retake Congress and then retroactively decide Newt Gingrich wasn't a valid speaker.

Why not!

That isn't the context of what we're talking about and you know it. You made a flat statement about my post being in error. I proved you wrong. The least you could do is simply apologize and move on.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Weird how the imbecile who literally just called for the Consitituion to be taken as-is has the hankering to find loopholes to keep criminals on the streets.

 

[Rightguide]

This from Kash Patel on the subject of J6 and the actions of Nancy Pelosi:

"I was serving as the chief of staff for the Department of Defense on Jan. 6, 2021, and it was my duty to ensure our laws and military chain of command were followed. The deployment of the National Guard requires presidential authorization, which Trump gave days before Jan. 6 in the Oval Office, where I was present. It also requires a request from local governing authorities, including D.C. Mayor Bowser and Capitol Police, who report to the speaker of the House.

It is worth noting that once the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser finally made the lawful request for the National Guard, Trump’s Department of Defense implemented the fastest cold start of the National Guard since World War II.

For years, I have testified under oath, in the media, and everywhere in between that Pelosi and Bowser were responsible for not requesting the National Guard on Jan. 6 after President Trump constitutionally authorized deploying the guard. We submitted the best evidence — their own written refusals — to the partisan Jan. 6 Committee. They excluded them from the record despite agreeing to include the letter and timeline.

Now, footage of Pelosi shows she blamed herself for not doing more. Pelosi did more than just create the unlawful and unconstitutional Jan. 6 committee; she hid evidence directly relevant to a congressional investigation, lied to the world, and decided to spend Jan. 6 filming a movie of herself. The sheer conceit of it all is surpassed only by her evil desire to destroy a movement that seeks to demolish her brand of corruption."

The rest of his article is here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/1...-2021-comes-from-democrats-like-nancy-pelosi/

 

[ll74]

That isn't the context of what we're talking about and you know it. You made a flat statement about my post being in error. I proved you wrong. The least you could do is simply apologize and move on.

Of course it is. You're discussing retroactively negating a previous House's work.

You haven't proved me wrong....your entire position is speculative and based off on untested theories and I pointed that out. If you can't admit that, it isn't my issue.

 

[ll74]

This from Kash Patel on the subject of J6 and the actions of Nancy Pelosi:

"I was serving as the chief of staff for the Department of Defense on Jan. 6, 2021, and it was my duty to ensure our laws and military chain of command were followed. The deployment of the National Guard requires presidential authorization, which Trump gave days before Jan. 6 in the Oval Office, where I was present. It also requires a request from local governing authorities, including D.C. Mayor Bowser and Capitol Police, who report to the speaker of the House.

It is worth noting that once the Capitol Police and Mayor Bowser finally made the lawful request for the National Guard, Trump’s Department of Defense implemented the fastest cold start of the National Guard since World War II.

For years, I have testified under oath, in the media, and everywhere in between that Pelosi and Bowser were responsible for not requesting the National Guard on Jan. 6 after President Trump constitutionally authorized deploying the guard. We submitted the best evidence — their own written refusals — to the partisan Jan. 6 Committee. They excluded them from the record despite agreeing to include the letter and timeline.

Now, footage of Pelosi shows she blamed herself for not doing more. Pelosi did more than just create the unlawful and unconstitutional Jan. 6 committee; she hid evidence directly relevant to a congressional investigation, lied to the world, and decided to spend Jan. 6 filming a movie of herself. The sheer conceit of it all is surpassed only by her evil desire to destroy a movement that seeks to demolish her brand of corruption."

The rest of his article is here: https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/1...-2021-comes-from-democrats-like-nancy-pelosi/

Lol

 

[Bn2f]

That isn't the context of what we're talking about and you know it. You made a flat statement about my post being in error. I proved you wrong. The least you could do is simply apologize and move on.

Perfect!
This is a perfect response here by RG!
Love it!
In starting this thread he never asks the why Bannon is going to jail, he simply seeks a remedy for him NOT to.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The deployment of the National Guard requires presidential authorization, which Trump gave days before Jan. 6 in the Oval Office,

trump knew and did nothing. That makes him an accomplice.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course it is. You're discussing retroactively negating a previous House's work.

You haven't proved me wrong....your entire position is speculative and based off on untested theories and I pointed that out. If you can't admit that, it isn't my issue.

You said Congress is bound by the actions of previous Congress'. You are wrong. Congress routinely amends the laws and acts of previous sessions. The historical examples are too numerous to list here.