Congress has been holding private citizens in contempt, and charging them for it criminally, since 1795. The Supreme Court first ruled on it in 1821, and has only expanded it from there. It’s about as settled as law can be.
The Courts won’t touch this with a ten foot pole.
He’s gonna appeal as far as he can go.
congress does not charge anyone criminally for anything. not their purview
Well, here’s the thing. He’s only going to be sentenced to a month or two in prison. He has a right to appeal - but he doesn’t have a right to be released pending his appeal. The Circuit can - and possibly will - just deny Bannon’s petition for bail pending his appeal, and by the time they hear his appeal, his sentence will already be over.
They do make the referrals though
Well, that’s the thing. Not only does Congress have the authority to refer people to the DoJ for prosecution - they actually have the Constitutional authority to take the law into their own hands and imprison people themselves, by floor vote. Precedent is filling with some amazing and hilarious examples.
The only way the Court would intervene was in a dispute between the Executive and the Legislature. In this case, they’re entirely in agreement.
a power given by a court in 1917 which another court can take away. and even that judge found no constitutional authority except if he read it in
otherwise you were wrong (as usual) the first criminal contempt of congress bill was passed in 1857. there was no law in 1795.
You’re entirely correct - there was no contempt of Congress law in 1795.
And yet, Congress still held people in contempt, and locked them up for it. The power to compel testimony, and punish contempt was inherent in the legislative power.
I’m posting the case brief because the actual opinion is incredibly difficult to read, being written in 1821 legalese. But there’s a link to it in there.
How about the standing committee here throwing congressional rules out the door in not allowing the GOP to appoint two of their own choosing, i. e. the deviation being essentially unprecedented and potentially something that could ultimately prevail in appeal?
There is no “rule” requiring Congress to allow the minority leader to appoint members to select commitees - and there’s definitely not a law saying they have to.
What’s the line? “Show me where it says that in the Constitution”. 
its been tested twice. in 1917 when a judge pretty much gave the congress the power without restriction and in 1927 when the courts restricted it. under the standard of the 1927 case, the contempt must serve a legislative function. does a witch hunt have a legislative function? also, the 1795 case had nothing to do with subpeonaes and none of the men were ever criminally charged. the idea that congress had the inherent power to compel testimony was not tested criminally until 1917.
The GOP was offerred an investigation committee where they could appoint an equal number of investigators, with the chair (DEM appointed) and the vice-chair (GOP) sharing subpoena power and where both had to agree for a subpoena to be issued.
The GOP rejected it, the GOP’s rejection resulted in the current committee.
WW
I love all of the cross examinations so that this is a search for truth and justice…oh…wait. 
Bannon didn’t have lawyers? Seriously? At least we now know you have no clue what is actually occurring
The prosecution of someone while claims of executive privilege are being resolved is unprecedented.
The DOJ has become a tool of political oppression.
…along with the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the MSM, social media and the united, corrupt political establishment.
It was resolved. The claim was rejected by a judge. The privilege does not apply to him
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/11/bannon-trial-hearing/
Tucker Carlson.
