Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(72,046 posts)
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 01:07 PM Jan 2018

Oh that's not suspicious or anything... 👀

The Associated Press?Verified account
@AP
BREAKING: AP Sources: Steve Bannon attorney relayed questions to White House during House interview, was told when not to respond.




Steve Bannon’s attorney relayed questions, in real time, to the White House during a House Intelligence Committee interview of the former Trump chief strategist.

That’s according to people familiar with the closed-door session who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

During the day-long interview Tuesday, Bannon’s attorney Bill Burck was asking the White House counsel’s office by phone whether his client could answer the questions. He was told by that office not to discuss his work on the transition or in the White House.



MORE:
https://apnews.com/c103dc352c604ae29b442bbec4cc9106?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP



36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oh that's not suspicious or anything... 👀 (Original Post) kpete Jan 2018 OP
WTF is that about? democratisphere Jan 2018 #1
It means Bannon's lawyers are in cahoots with the White House FakeNoose Jan 2018 #24
Bannon's lawyer is also Reince Priebus' lawyer & lawyer to WH Counsel McGahn. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jan 2018 #35
Obstruction of Justice, Collusion and cover-up. Baitball Blogger Jan 2018 #2
I don't see how it could be considered to be anything else. Arkansas Granny Jan 2018 #4
not to mention witness tampering NewJeffCT Jan 2018 #7
No, we can't forget witness tampering. Baitball Blogger Jan 2018 #11
Exactly MFM008 Jan 2018 #9
Yes! peggysue2 Jan 2018 #14
What scares the shithole out of me is that this behavior has been normalized Baitball Blogger Jan 2018 #15
The WH staff is certainly . . . peggysue2 Jan 2018 #20
+1 uponit7771 Jan 2018 #21
Say it with me: Obstruction of Justice FSogol Jan 2018 #3
That depends Eliot Rosewater Jan 2018 #27
Collusion much? Historic NY Jan 2018 #5
Might not be able to easily subpoena the attorneys electronic devices. NCTraveler Jan 2018 #6
what is don scared of???? spanone Jan 2018 #8
His money MFM008 Jan 2018 #10
Call it what is: CONSPIRACY to Obstruct Justice Roland99 Jan 2018 #12
Keep handing them more rope, Special Counsel Mueller. aikoaiko Jan 2018 #13
So... D_Master81 Jan 2018 #16
You are apparently the only poster in this thread that's heard of "executive privilege"... PoliticAverse Jan 2018 #28
Well, that's just weird gratuitous Jan 2018 #17
WTF???? These people astound me with their inability to feel shame... Moostache Jan 2018 #18
How is that shit not illegal? FirstLight Jan 2018 #19
Collusion, anyone? Lifelong Protester Jan 2018 #22
Isn't this conspiracy? MontanaMama Jan 2018 #25
Yep. I agree with you. Lifelong Protester Jan 2018 #36
LOCK HIM UP! jmbar2 Jan 2018 #23
H would just get someone to lie for him and they would forget about it world wide wally Jan 2018 #26
Can't do that in the grand jury room. Sophia4 Jan 2018 #29
No, but you can walk out of the grand jury room after every question and consult your lawyer... PoliticAverse Jan 2018 #30
But members of the grand jury see that. So it's probably not a good idea. Sophia4 Jan 2018 #33
Obstruction of Justice workinclasszero Jan 2018 #31
HOLD ON, PEOPLE! PJMcK Jan 2018 #32
And Sarah Fuck-a-bee was bragging on how transparent the WH is on this. Ligyron Jan 2018 #34

FakeNoose

(32,899 posts)
24. It means Bannon's lawyers are in cahoots with the White House
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:47 PM
Jan 2018

Well that's going to end. Strip search each person before they enter the interrogation room.
Interrogation should take place in a wifi-free environment.


peggysue2

(10,850 posts)
14. Yes!
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:06 PM
Jan 2018

And they did it for a Congressional audience.

Desperate measures for desperate times. Unless they really thought no one would notice.

peggysue2

(10,850 posts)
20. The WH staff is certainly . . .
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:34 PM
Jan 2018

working feverishly to normalize all the bizarre behavior. The Trumpster's remaining base supporters will make excuses for just about anything.

For the rest of us? Not so much. Because this behavior isn't getting better; it's getting worse.

But as you said, the Republicans have turned into the Pod People.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,137 posts)
27. That depends
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 03:22 PM
Jan 2018

If the person doing it is a republican, no, if it is a democrat, not only is it obstruction but they would be drummed out of politics day one.

We know republicans do not have to nor do they play by the rules.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
6. Might not be able to easily subpoena the attorneys electronic devices.
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 01:36 PM
Jan 2018

Probably be pretty easy to get the device the messages were being sent to. I don't even think they would have to know who had the device or what kind it was.

D_Master81

(1,823 posts)
16. So...
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:11 PM
Jan 2018

Are they just going to argue executive priviledge here? I dont know what kind of argument you have to stand on where you say he cant talk about something to an investigation. November cant get here fast enough so we can get these sham committees to hopefully do their job. As it is they're doing nothing but wasting tax payer dollars to assist in a cover up by the white house.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
28. You are apparently the only poster in this thread that's heard of "executive privilege"...
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 03:35 PM
Jan 2018
I dont know what kind of argument you have to stand on where you say he cant talk about something to an investigation.

That's how the Bush administration was able to stop Karl Rove's testimony, see:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/rove.subpoena/index.html

Ultimately it'd be up to the courts to decide the extent of any "executive privilege".

For more background on the issue, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
17. Well, that's just weird
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:11 PM
Jan 2018

I wonder if anyone on the House Intelligence Committee noticed that Bannon's attorney was furiously messaging someone and that the answers to questions were held up for a little while until the attorney got a response? Is this courtesy commonly extended to everyone appearing before the committee? Because it seems a smidgen odd that people not in the room for a closed session of the committee would have not just knowledge of what was going on, but input on the proceedings.

Moostache

(9,897 posts)
18. WTF???? These people astound me with their inability to feel shame...
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:18 PM
Jan 2018

or understand that they are no longer dealing with a county commissioner or zoning committee that can be strong armed to get something they want...

The sheer idiocy of the current POTUS is staggering, and he MUST be held to account for it all...that which is currently doing and that which was done in pursuit of the office he holds and also that which was done prior to the election.

Trump is filthy, not merely tainted or dirty. He needs to go down in epic and public fashion, NOW!

FirstLight

(13,368 posts)
19. How is that shit not illegal?
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:26 PM
Jan 2018

...he should have been cuffed right then and there for talking to the subject of an investigation...

Maybe I don't know the law that well, but DUH!

jmbar2

(4,920 posts)
23. LOCK HIM UP!
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 02:42 PM
Jan 2018

Our nation appears to be helpless against the criminal takeover of the white house. How can this be? If Trump murdered someone in the white house, they'd just debate it, I guess.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
30. No, but you can walk out of the grand jury room after every question and consult your lawyer...
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 03:40 PM
Jan 2018

who can then do the same thing.

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
33. But members of the grand jury see that. So it's probably not a good idea.
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 03:46 PM
Jan 2018

Makes you look like you are trying to avoid answering questions, and also wastes the time of the members of the grand jury. Not a way to win friends and influence people.

PJMcK

(22,069 posts)
32. HOLD ON, PEOPLE!
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 03:45 PM
Jan 2018

There is too much hand-wringing in this thread. Geez.

If the Congressional committee doesn't like Bannon's refusals to answer questions and they accept his claim of executive privilege, then it is up to Congress to enforce its rules. They could declare Bannon in contempt of Congress and have him taken into custody until he answers their questions.

Not this Congress. They are toothless. More importantly, they don't want the truth to come out since so many of them are complicit with Trump's corruption.

Regardless, the Congressional investigations are meaningless because they are being directed, by Grassley and Nunes, down rabbit holes of nothingness.

Let's see what Robert Mueller comes up with. He isn't tainted by Trump's stank and he's clearly smarter than all of these other idiots. I truly believe he will reveal the length and breadth of Trump's corruption and illegalities. In those exposures, I also believe many others, mostly Republicans, will be exposed as traitorous scum.

Let's not worry. The truth will be made public. It will be ugly and divisive. It will cause a lot of trouble that will take time to heal. But it will be the only way to purge our system of the corrupting rot of this band of miscreants.

Ligyron

(7,645 posts)
34. And Sarah Fuck-a-bee was bragging on how transparent the WH is on this.
Wed Jan 17, 2018, 04:05 PM
Jan 2018

Transparent?

Yeah, they're not even trying to make it look like anything other than witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

Clear as can be.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Oh that's not suspicious ...