Some notes.
(1) Congress has the option to seek a declaratory lawsuit over its subpoena authority to challenge Bannon's Trump-derived claim that his testimony is privileged. But that's not where they're going.
(1) Congress has the option to seek a declaratory lawsuit over its subpoena authority to challenge Bannon's Trump-derived claim that his testimony is privileged. But that's not where they're going.
https://twitter.com/January6thCmte/status/1448701957913337859
(2) Ordinarily, these things don't actually get litigated. The individuals eventually agree to testify with certain reservations.
(3) Going straight to a referral to the US Att'y's office is skipping straight to the nuclear option.
(3) Going straight to a referral to the US Att'y's office is skipping straight to the nuclear option.
(4) Under this scheme, the US Att'y would then have to decide whether referral to a grand jury is warranted.
(5) Rep. Thompson says that, per statute, the US Att'y "must" bring the matter before a grand jury, but DOJ has always maintained that the decision whether to prosecute is a discretionary decision. This is *exceptionally* rare.
(6) Are you not entertained?
(6) Are you not entertained?
Here's Rep. Thompson suggesting that the US Att'y has to bring the matter before a grand jury.
But, again, DOJ has always maintained that it always has discretion to decide whether to bring a case.
But, again, DOJ has always maintained that it always has discretion to decide whether to bring a case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
