Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

CNN is reporting on the testimony of Attorney Cipollone before the house committee for 8 hours without apparently contradicting the testimony of earlier witnesses AND also running an interview with the FBI director Chris Wray in which he said its investigation will follow the trail regardless of whom it upsets [or words to that effect].

It seems some person has gotten word to CNN of a strange tale that Don Trump is considering withdrawing executive privilege from Steve Bannon where it comes to the committee meeting Bannon for interview and/or testimony. I'm minded to treat this tale with scepticism even though I'd like to see if Trump's executive privilege wall was crumbling an he was going to throw Bannon under the bus.

Another strange tale on CNN is that one of the major militia members who supported the Capitol insurgency bid is supposed to be talking to the committee about testifying in OPEN SESSION before it. I'd be very sceptical about allowing such a person access to a public stage to make a political statement to justify that bid regardless to any right to put forward a defence to one's illegal actions as the committee hearing are not trial proceedings and definitely not something similar to that given to Hitler and Co during their trial after their Munich Putsch bid in 1923, just over a century ago.

The Irish Times and various US media outlets [incl Fox News] have reported in the past few hours that Steve Bannon's lawyer sent the committee a letter on Saturday to the effect that Bannon will testify before it. This is after former president Trump said he would withdraw the executive privilege claim both claimed exists AFTER Trump fired Bannon BEFORE they consulted in the run-up to the attack on the Capitol, meaning Bannon was a private citizen as a result of said firing. Mr Trump sent a different letter for Bannon's attention [in the possession of Bannon's lawyer] containing a statement that he would waive that executive privilege claim because he was angered with the way the committee was presenting the hearings. Mr Trump, according to the reports, wrote in his letter to Bannon "If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks". The next committee hearings are planned for Tuesday [tomorrow] and Thursday. I suppose the crux of any testimony from Bannon will be what one defines as truthful and fair testimony.

Judge Carl Nichols has refused to delay Bannon's trial for contempt of Congress [which the DOJ is prosecuting] next Monday after Bannon's lawyers sought a weeks adjournment from that date to allow them prepare a defence. The judge also threw out Bannon's claim of executive privilege. The judge ruled that the prosecutors only needed to prove that Bannon acted "deliberately" and "intentionally" to defy the select committee - not that he knew it was wrong or illegal. That [IMO] lessens the burden of proof for the prosecutors.

Judge Nichols also ruled "Bannon cannot present evidence that he relied on internal DOJ opinions or assertions of executive privilege". I'm reading that to refer to opinions or assertions of former Trump era AG's, Deputy & Assistant AG's from within the DOJ about executive privilege covering things discussed between Trump and former staffers like Bannon.

Allegedly Bannon's lawyer made a statement asking "what's the point of going to trial" after the judge made his rulings.

The discussion between the CNN panel after the public transmission of todays committee hearing and testimony showings seems to indicate the intent of the hearings is to sway the voters of both parties towards a verdict on Trump [should he signal an intent to stand again] in the next election AND not a verdict of a trial jury. Let's say the hearings seek a de facto, not a de jure, estimate be made in the minds of the US electorate on whether it would be safe for the US to vote for him again, given his political platform and the kind of strange close confidants he keeps as personal campaign advisers, extra to the group inclusive of his campaign manager.

The inclusion of Senator Mitch McConnell shown on tape during the hearing declaring Joe Biden to be the newly elected President before the coup bid is clearly meant to be a guiding light for the regular voters in the next election.

A silly question perhaps, but if you are no longer in a role, such as President, how can a former President withdraw a Presidential executive privilege. surely only a current President can do such a thing? I am just wondering. Truly not a clue about the processes in the US.

It's probable that Trump think's, as he made the offer, he's the only one who can withdraw it and definitely not the one who "stole" the elected office from him.

On the issue of theft of elected public office, given what he tried to do on the 06th, the offence of attempted theft could be laid at his door.

Melania Trump said in an interview with Fox News earlier today that she was not aware of the violence at the Capitol on the 06th Jan as she was performing her 1st Lady duties in the White House, as other 1st ladies did before her time, taking archive photos of the house interior with a photo crew following works on the house. She said her COS, Stephanie Grisham, was not in the White House on January 6, and her behavior in her role as Chief of Staff ultimately amounts to dereliction of duty. "In fact, Ms. Grisham failed to provide insight and information into the events surrounding January 6 as she had abandoned her post in Washington, D.C.". "Shamefully, this behavior has only partially become public knowledge; yet was consistent for Ms. Grisham."

She added: "It is evident that Grisham’s recent betrayals are a last-ditch attempt to resuscitate her ruined career and reputation."

An accusation by a Trump that the COS was guilty of dereliction of duty on the 06th while the Capitol insurgency was ongoing is refreshing to hear.