Several lessons for those who've been growling Merrick Garland about bringing an indictment against Bannon, and also about future cases. This didn't take weeks. It took 7 days.
The Justice Department does not bring these kind of charges. The US Attorney for DC District does../1
The Justice Department does not bring these kind of charges. The US Attorney for DC District does../1
...the US Attorney, Matthew Graves, signed indictment filing. His nomination reported out of committee on 9/23. On 10/21, House voted to refer the Bannon charges for prosecution. On 10/28, Graves confirmed on voice vote. On 11/5, he was sworn in. *Never* would a politically.../2 
...sensitive indictment be brought in the middle of a confirmation by an acting US Attorney, then handed off to the US Attorney after confirmation. All of the necessary work was done - that's why it was done in 7 days (which is fast for any indictment, no matter how easy you.../3
...think case might be.) That is enough time for Graves to review work already done (on legal issues is important element), sign off, allow for presentation for grand jury which sits only on particular days of week, have presentation to grand jury which hands up indictment.../4
...so, good for Graves. Now, folks who think this means something for Mark Meadows. It does & doesn't. Bannon had no basis for invoking anything to avoid testifying other than 5th Amendment. There is a legal question open as to whether a former president can invoke executive.../5
...privilege. I think it's nonsense, and you might too. But that's no matter. Trump invoked it, and Meadows can reasonably say he needs a court to rule on whether that is valid for him to know what to do. BUT...and this is a big but...executive privilege.../6
...applies to answering particular questions, *not* to testifying altogether. Perhaps the committee believes based on evidence it obtained that Meadows engaged in criminal activity without speaking to Trump. That is clearly not covered by executive privilege. Perhaps they.../7
...want to ask him about his conversations with every other person outside the White House leading up to that day, including people like Bannon. Clearly not covered. Executive privilege is not a cone of protection for everyone near Trump. So yes, whether Meadows answers.../8
...questions about his communications with Trump is an open legal question that he is in his right to seek judicial ruling on. But he is absolutely under no protection against testifying, and Trump has no power to stop him. His refusal to appear under subpoena is a crime..../9
...he and the committee could easily carve out sections of testimony that might be covered by privilege and agree to return to those sections later if courts rule that executive privilege does not extend to post-presidency.
end
end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
