Bannon agrees to testify to Jan 6th panel

I personally don't trust this shitstain as far as I can throw him. The panel needs to have him testify behind closed doors, under oath first before they allow this traitor to speak in front of the American people in public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/bannon-jan-6-trump.html

Hopefully all the trumpists here will share with us his meltdowns on lie social over this news.

 

He doesn't have a choice. Just like the Orange Stain, he won't do well in prison. It's in his best interest to look like he's being cooperative or learn not to drop his soap. His choice.

eta: Why don't you want him to testify in front of the American public? @Lee Atwater also said something about him not being allowed to testify in front of people.

Won't that just help the adults in the room distance further from the Stain? The other ones are too far lost. They don't matter.

 

I would only allow him to testify in public AFTER he testifies under oath behind closed doors to see if he is actually telling the truth. Allowing him to go straight to a public hearing will be a mistake as he will go up there and either say outlandish horseshit lies or nothing at all. Once he testifies under oath behind closed doors, they got the ammo they need if he tries that BS in a public setting.

 

Ah yes, the defining quality of this entire far-left wing controlled farce of of a clownworld circus. Only show that which can be used to advance the leftist narrative and suppress everything else either through committee rule changes, leaks, or selective 'testimony'.

 

OK. I understand that better now. I was a bit confused because the Orange Stain spews BS every time he opens his mouth and they accept it all without a moment's hesitation but I can see why he needs his statements recorded for "no wiggle room" when he spews his toxic BS.

 

Nah. Just seeing if Jaba will actually deliver on any goods when he testifies. Allowing him to bloviate and lie would be a mistake.

 

If he doesn’t tow the trump line he’ll go back under the bus like he has before. Amazing he’s still loved in Trump land after needing a pardon for stealing all that money for the border wall.

 

Under oath- yes.

Behind closed doors- **** no.

Bannon seems a POS. So are all the people on the panel. Im sick of 'closed doors.' I dont need rich, corrupt, elitist shitbags curating what information I get to hear, and neither do you. Put him on the stand, under oath, and ask him questions while everyone watches all of it. If we dont get that, then we're just getting someones manufactured and edited narrative, a scripted play designed for political manipulation.

 

He will try to turn the heating into a circus.

 

If he's under oath, then toss him in jail for lying. If its the truth that turns it into a circus, then so be it. We still deserve to know.

No closed doors hearings. We cant trust any of them.

 

Exactly. Put him in a room and make sure he's going to help uphold the left's narrative. If not then don't let him tell his side. #justice


/eyeroll

 

If he's under oath and lies, then he goes to jail. No closed doors necessary. I'll take a circus over a pre-scripted presentation after the fact, and most everyone else will as well.

 

Here's what we get with a closed doors hearing:

'Mr Bannon, you're under oath. Did you break the law?'
'Yes.'
'Will you testify on TV that Trump did it instead? Then you wont be charged.'
'OK.'

Even if this isn't how it goes down, this is how most people are going to assume it went down if it happens behind closed doors. We need transparency because these people are not to be trusted.

 

Oops. The Orange Stain mafia boss threatening people and buying false testimonies by paying for legal representatives has already done that.

 

Do you know how statements under oath are recorded and retained? It doesn't appear that you do which is why I'm asking. It's not meant as a dig.

 

it's time Bannon set them straight. I wonder if they'll mute his mic.

 

I know if it happens behind closed doors, they can record *or not* whatever they want. Not legally, of course, but that doesn't seem to matter much these days.

History is written by the victor.

 

End this nightmare already. Benghazi was pointless, but this is even more so. it clearly does not and never did have a legislative purpose. Fine, if you find crimes had been committed, you don't need anymore 'hearings' you need to submit it to AG Garland, who has been more than helpful towards this end of a political-judicial resolution. The People don't need to hear anything but the official closing of the commission and a report to the attorney general.

 

That's not what I was asking you but that's fine. I'll try to explain. Whenever testimony is taken under oath, there is a stenographer (somebody that actually types out everything he or she hears). There is also a written transcript (that is an actual document that includes names, time stamps and statements verbatim). There is also an actual camera and voice recorder present so everything is recorded and filed. All of this information is recorded and held indefinitely (or as legally required as in tax evasion hearings).

This is important to note because this is the reason that people get stuck on why a case is not re-adjudicated when it goes to appellate, State Supreme courts or all the way to SCOTUS. It's because that information is already recorded and documented in the lower courts and those points of our legal system are not there to "retry" the case but determine if the case was tried in accordance with the applicable laws in that court's jurisdiction and done correctly. You also can't *add* new information later which is why some Trump supporters are incorrect in stating that Trump has been denied the right to have his cases heard in court. That's not true. Trump's legal team did not present the court with the proper documentation on which to a case CAN be tried. You can't just walk into court and say "My spidey senses tell me X". There is a legal process that has to be met for which a case is determined to "have merit". In his case, none of the cases presented were about "widespread election fraud" and none of them met the requirements for the judge to grant them to be heard.

Therefore, what you presented is not possible for the simple reason that anything Bannon says will be recorded and documented as described above and that information can't be changed or altered in any way. This is why my posting history for today shows a reversal in my opinion on if he should be allowed to make his statements publicly. I didn't think it would make a difference at first because people have already made up their minds about who they believe (or want to believe) but @WalterSobchak's reply put that in perspective for me. His point was that if Bannon's testimony is officially documented, it will *always* exist so anything he says publicly after that which contradicts what he's said under oath can be used against him in a court of law.

Further, think of it as linear for a moment.

1. Bannon testifies under oath.
2. Bannon says dumbass stuff in front of the cameras for the American people.
3. Someone else testifies under oath at a later date (and that testimony contradicts Bannon's public statements).
4. Bannon (Trump, etc.) would have the option of filing a lawsuit for defamation but ONLY if what the 3rd party testified to was false.
5. Plus, it would not be in his best interests to sue for defamation if his public statements are not consistent with his statements under oath.

This is the reason that Trump is freaking out. Nobody has been willing to come forward to testify that Hutchinson lied under oath. The logical reason for that is they can't because she told the truth. The way that side chose to address is was Trump had his usual meltdowns and name calling on his social media site, some other public figures tried to shame her publicly and they put out a quick statement that there were Secret Service agents standing by to testify that she was lying. They probably didn't exist but it was done that way to give his <whatever you call them> doubts about her veracity. However, it back-fired because some Secret Service agents came forward and corroborated her statements. They put out an article that the SS agent that was actually in the vehicle with Trump that day said that he never told anyone about the encounter for over a year. Again, it back-fired because several came forward and stated that it was talked about constantly in their inner circles since the day it happened.

Which leads us to Bannon. He thought he could just blow off cooperating and when he learned that he couldn't, Trump issued his "lift of Executive Privilege" (@Patricio Da Silva wrote a post about this today if you want to see why it's all smoke and mirrors). Bannon was going to be held in contempt and go to prison if he didn't respond. We saw a similar move from Rudy. His friends reached out to Trump to plead with him to pay Rudy for his legal services because he needed to retain his own attorney for the charges he was facing. Trump still refused to pay him because all the fake attempts at overturning the election didn't work. Soon after, Rudy publicly stated that he was prepared to go to prison. We saw the same thing with Lindell. He shot off his mouth saying he would welcome a defamation suit from Dominion. He wouldn't stop so they hit him with a defamation suit and then a bunch of stuff comes out about how he has spent millions of dollars to help prove the "fraud claims" and he has had to resort to selling off stuff because he's lost so much with various retailers dropping his product line. It's all the exact same pattern once you remove the childish name-calling and red herrings.

In short, it doesn't work behind closed doors in the way your post suggests that it does. If it did, every single person in prison would have a "get out of jail free" card.

 

P.S. I was trying to make sure I explained the legal part that I forgot about commenting on the insinuation.

The people involved in recording live testimony are third parties and they don't work for the same employers. This means if something goes "missing", it's not subterfuge by X number of individuals whose only role is to create accurate documentation and recordings and all of them would have to be corrupt for something to COMPLETELY disappear.

Think about it. That's probably the reason that Trump disobeyed a direct request and our laws to hand his documents over to the National Archives upon departing the White House. He can't lie and deny any of the information in them once they are in the archives (which also begs the question of his complicity in the many, many rules he broke and laws he violated while in office).

 

If there's any corrupt stenographers in all the country (and its a guarantee there's at least a few), that would omit testimony from the record when instructed and properly incentivized, someone on the Jan 6 commitee knows how to find them and how to get them into their proceedings. Though its a good bet they already work in DC and have for a long time.

 

That's not accurate and I commented on that. The stenographer, cameraperson (or crew) and transcriptionist(s) don't work for the same company and all of them are either non-partisan or there is a mix of partisans. The companies contracted to do that have to be approved and that process also includes non-partisans or a mix.

You might be thinking of Perry Mason reruns with one person in the room taking notes. That's not how it happens today and certainly not in such a high-profile case.

 

So when, say, an out-of-line comment is stricken from the written record on the order of the judge so as to prevent it from influencing later decisions should the case go to appelate court, as is common practice, is it not also removed from the auditory recording for the same reason? What's to stop that from being used to alter the record in the scenario I described?

 

1. Once something has been said, it's been said. You can't make the listener **unhear** it so lawyers often do that deliberately just for the purpose of having that information stick out in the jurors' memories.

2. When a judge strikes something from the record, it is based on some legal technicality, not a bias in either direction on the case. It has to be based on a foundational reason for striking something. A judge can't just say "Scratch that" for no reason. Otherwise, every attorney on the side that lost could use that as a way to have the case declared a mistrial and reheard without prejudice.

3. Even if something is "stricken from the record" and that information is *ignored*, the data still exists. It's not literally erased so there is no "reinvention of history" happening. It's there. The legal requirement is that it can't be used when making a finding on the case.

4. There is not ONE person on the Capitol riot committee that is the final word. No one person on the committee can do anything unilaterally or "off the record" to influence anything.

 

don't trust him, don't drop the case until AFTER he testifies