Washington — The chairman of the House of Representatives investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol said next week that Stephen K. Bannon, a former chief adviser to President Donald J. Trump, refused to follow. We voted to encourage criminal insults. Subpoena.
The move is about access to key witnesses and documents that can shed light on what caused the riots when the Protrump mob attacked and confused the Houses of Parliament, with the Election Commission and the former president. The formal number of votes in Congress confirming President Biden’s elections will escalate what is shaped to be a major court battle between.
After Mr Bannon notified the panel that he would oppose the subpoena according to Mr. Trump’s instructions, he claimed to his former aides and advisers the executive privilege he could protect, so he investigated. Said that he should not cooperate with. Documents in which the White House deliberations or the President is involved from disclosure.
“Mr. Bannon refuses to cooperate with the Election Commission and instead hides behind the former President’s inadequate, inclusive and vague statement about the privileges he is trying to exercise,” said Benny of the Mississippi Democratic Party. -Member Thompson and the chairman of the committee said in a statement. .. “We completely reject his position. The Special Committee does not tolerate the rebellion of the subpoena and must proceed with the procedure to introduce Mr Bannon for criminal insult.”
Under federal law, a person summoned as a witness to Congress and refused to comply could be fined $ 100 to $ 100,000 and misdemeanor with a month to a year’s imprisonment.
A committee governed by the Democratic Party is expected to agree to pursue such penalties on Tuesday. It will almost certainly send an insulting quote to Full House, which has a vote to approve it. The issue was then sent to the Justice Department and authorities were advised to file a proceeding against Mr Bannon.
The tedious process reflects the challenging reality that Democrats are working to advance the investigation. Parliament is a legislative body, not a law enforcement agency, and its ability to coerce and punish fraud is inherently limited. The investigative tools are as powerful as the court decides, and the process of conducting a legal battle to secure important information and witnesses can be lengthy.
Bannon’s lawyer, Robert J. Costello, said in a letter to the Commission Wednesday that his client would not write or testify “until an agreement with President Trump” about the claim of executive privilege. Said. Receive a court decision. “
The Biden administration refused to extend privileges to Mr. Trump, but the matter could end in court. And for Bannon, who hasn’t been an executive official since he left the White House in 2017, his claims are particularly sparse as they relate to conversations and documents about the January 6 attack.
In the first batch of subpoenas, the Special Committee ordered four former Trump administration officials — Mr. Bannon. Mark Meadows, White House Chief of Staff. Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino Jr. Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel will sit down for testimony this week and provide documents and other resources related to the investigation.
The Commission said Meadows and Patel were in contact with the panel. Sources familiar with the Commission’s negotiations said lawmakers were likely to delay the two men before testifying. Mr. Scabino received a subpoena last week.
On Wednesday, the Commission issued a subpoena to Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department employee who was involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The Commission’s actions are from former Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, who publicly and privately testified about the final day of the Trump administration, by the former president using the Justice Department as a top executive to make false allegations of fraud. Proceed and invalidate the election results.
In a personal testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Rosen told him that Clark was preparing to fire Rosen and pursued conspiracy theories about voting booth hacking and elections. He said he supported Clark’s strategy. scam.
“Well, you won’t be fired by anyone working for me,” Rosen told Clark.