Bannon strikes deal with Mueller to avoid grand jury testimony in Trump-Russia probe

[THE_DEVIL]

Steve Bannon will tell his story to special counsel Robert Mueller — but he won’t testify before a grand jury.

The former White House chief strategist has struck a deal with the special counsel and will instead be interviewed by prosecutors, according to CNN’s Kara Scannell and David Wright.

A source told CNN that Bannon was expected to cooperate with Mueller’s team, but the person did not say when the interview would take place or whether a subpoena issued last week by the special counsel would be withdrawn.

Bannon’s attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that the former Breitbart News chief and White House official would openly speak with Mueller because executive privilege would not apply.
http://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/ban...d-grand-jury-testimony-in-trump-russia-probe/

 

[ICHawk-I]

Guess we'll find out if Sloppy Steve was butthurt after his recent fallout with the President. We all know how much he'd love to take down the Trump kids.

 

[SL Hawk Fan]

I'm sure it's because I don't know the legal ins and outs of this process, but i'm perplexed on why this course of action is necessary. Can someone explain why Mueller's team would prefer the private interview process as opposed to putting Bannon in front of a grand jury?

I imagine that it boils down to different rules/requirements in the different venues regarding use of executive privilege, threat of perjury, creating a written record, etc.

I know the Senate Intel Cmte is a circus, so I get that.
Grand Jury puts Bannon under oath, without executive privilege (I think), which seems ideal. Two potential risks I see are: 1) telegraphing your next moves to the WH, assuming they will become privy to what is said, which would be an understandable concern for the probe; and/or 2) having Bannon put something on the record that is unfavorable to the investigation, which I would find less defensible assuming what Bannon says is, in fact, true. And there is always the risk that Bannon is willing to perjure himself to throw a wrench into the investigation (i.e. cast it and Mueller in a bad light) which could very easily derail the whole process.

Any insights from wiser folks than I are much appreciated.

 

[Uwe.Blab]

I'm sure it's because I don't know the legal ins and outs of this process, but i'm perplexed on why this course of action is necessary. Can someone explain why Mueller's team would prefer the private interview process as opposed to putting Bannon in front of a grand jury?

I imagine that it boils down to different rules/requirements in the different venues regarding use of executive privilege, threat of perjury, creating a written record, etc.

I know the Senate Intel Cmte is a circus, so I get that.
Grand Jury puts Bannon under oath, without executive privilege (I think), which seems ideal. Two potential risks I see are: 1) telegraphing your next moves to the WH, assuming they will become privy to what is said, which would be an understandable concern for the probe; and/or 2) having Bannon put something on the record that is unfavorable to the investigation, which I would find less defensible assuming what Bannon says is, in fact, true. And there is always the risk that Bannon is willing to perjure himself to throw a wrench into the investigation (i.e. cast it and Mueller in a bad light) which could very easily derail the whole process.

Any insights from wiser folks than I are much appreciated.

Mueller, a veteran prosecutor, has so far used less formal interviews to question current and former Trump advisors, so it’s also unclear why he opted for a grand jury in this instance. If it’s a bargaining chip for negotiations with Bannon, as the Times suggests in its report, it may be an effective one. Those who’ve testified before a grand jury during the high-stakes Washington scandals of yore describe it as a grueling, secretive process, one during which even their own lawyers can’t be present.To avoid that interrogation, Bannon might have to give Mueller something in return.

 

[srams21]

Trump has been bashing Bannon lately.

I would not be surprised if Bannon opens up and unleashes a ton of info on Donnie and his activity.

 

[lucas80]

Guess we'll find out if Sloppy Steve was butthurt after his recent fallout with the President. We all know how much he'd love to take down the Trump kids.

Bannon would love to take Jared down. It will be interesting to see how he walks a tightrope of not alienating Don, but he trashes Jared and Little Don.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm sure it's because I don't know the legal ins and outs of this process, but i'm perplexed on why this course of action is necessary. Can someone explain why Mueller's team would prefer the private interview process as opposed to putting Bannon in front of a grand jury?

I imagine that it boils down to different rules/requirements in the different venues regarding use of executive privilege, threat of perjury, creating a written record, etc.

I know the Senate Intel Cmte is a circus, so I get that.
Grand Jury puts Bannon under oath, without executive privilege (I think), which seems ideal. Two potential risks I see are: 1) telegraphing your next moves to the WH, assuming they will become privy to what is said, which would be an understandable concern for the probe; and/or 2) having Bannon put something on the record that is unfavorable to the investigation, which I would find less defensible assuming what Bannon says is, in fact, true. And there is always the risk that Bannon is willing to perjure himself to throw a wrench into the investigation (i.e. cast it and Mueller in a bad light) which could very easily derail the whole process.

Any insights from wiser folks than I are much appreciated.

I’m intrigued as well, will this be under penalty of perjury?

 

[lucas80]

Part of me thinks Bannon wants to spill all he knows to prove he was the smartest person in the room, to prove how important he was, to settle a score with the Jew son-in-law who took him out, he is whiskey tough, and he just likes to sit and listen to himself talk.
The question of will perjury be applicable is interesting. I don't see how Mueller makes any arrangement that excludes coming back on someone if they aren't open and truthful. And, part of me wonders if Flynn flipping has made a few people edgy?

 

[MitchL]

Bannon would love to take Jared down. It will be interesting to see how he walks a tightrope of not alienating Don, but he trashes Jared and Little Don.

^^^^This. I think he's got a boner against those two and might eventually use a "scorched earth" strategy to gain revenge.

Tic toc, tic toc, .......

 

[ottumwan in tx]

it's the hills/podesta probe. news to follow.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Maybe the IC wants Bannon to be able to talk to the media after the testimony? The subpoena can always be enforced if Mueller thinks Bannon is not being truthful and/or wants to have some stuff asked of Bannon at a later date that he doesn't want in the public domain.

Just spit ballin'...

 

[unIowa]

it's the hills/podesta probe. news to follow.

YES!

 

[Lone Clone]

Steve Bannon will tell his story to special counsel Robert Mueller — but he won’t testify before a grand jury.

The former White House chief strategist has struck a deal with the special counsel and will instead be interviewed by prosecutors, according to CNN’s Kara Scannell and David Wright.

A source told CNN that Bannon was expected to cooperate with Mueller’s team, but the person did not say when the interview would take place or whether a subpoena issued last week by the special counsel would be withdrawn.

Bannon’s attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that the former Breitbart News chief and White House official would openly speak with Mueller because executive privilege would not apply.
http://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/ban...d-grand-jury-testimony-in-trump-russia-probe/

Well, if CNN says it, I'd expect Bannon to be talking to a grand jury within a week.

 

[ScoutRefugee]

YES!

I'd be more than a little dubious about relying on Inforwars as my news source.
In a perfect world?
Trump and Hillary jailed. Campaign finance laws removing corporate and foreign income from campaigns. Elimination of super pacs. New POTUS under real individual campaigns in 2020.

 

[dgordo]

I'm sure it's because I don't know the legal ins and outs of this process, but i'm perplexed on why this course of action is necessary. Can someone explain why Mueller's team would prefer the private interview process as opposed to putting Bannon in front of a grand jury?

I imagine that it boils down to different rules/requirements in the different venues regarding use of executive privilege, threat of perjury, creating a written record, etc.

I know the Senate Intel Cmte is a circus, so I get that.
Grand Jury puts Bannon under oath, without executive privilege (I think), which seems ideal. Two potential risks I see are: 1) telegraphing your next moves to the WH, assuming they will become privy to what is said, which would be an understandable concern for the probe; and/or 2) having Bannon put something on the record that is unfavorable to the investigation, which I would find less defensible assuming what Bannon says is, in fact, true. And there is always the risk that Bannon is willing to perjure himself to throw a wrench into the investigation (i.e. cast it and Mueller in a bad light) which could very easily derail the whole process.

Any insights from wiser folks than I are much appreciated.

Just because he’s not testifying before a grand jury doesn’t mean he won’t be under oath, just depends on the structure they agree to. At a minimum the interview would provide the ability to document testimony for later use.

 

[SoProudNole]

it's the hills/podesta probe. news to follow.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm sure it's because I don't know the legal ins and outs of this process, but i'm perplexed on why this course of action is necessary. Can someone explain why Mueller's team would prefer the private interview process as opposed to putting Bannon in front of a grand jury?

I imagine that it boils down to different rules/requirements in the different venues regarding use of executive privilege, threat of perjury, creating a written record, etc.

I know the Senate Intel Cmte is a circus, so I get that.
Grand Jury puts Bannon under oath, without executive privilege (I think), which seems ideal. Two potential risks I see are: 1) telegraphing your next moves to the WH, assuming they will become privy to what is said, which would be an understandable concern for the probe; and/or 2) having Bannon put something on the record that is unfavorable to the investigation, which I would find less defensible assuming what Bannon says is, in fact, true. And there is always the risk that Bannon is willing to perjure himself to throw a wrench into the investigation (i.e. cast it and Mueller in a bad light) which could very easily derail the whole process.

Any insights from wiser folks than I are much appreciated.

Maybe Bannon told him that if he's forced to testify to the Grand Jury he will just pled the 5th on everything and stonewall him. Where as if he can question him in a way that's a little friendlier to Bannon he will be more forthcomming with information.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[Lone Clone]

View embedded media

Uh.......isn't that why they call it executive privilege?

 

[SSG T]

Uh.......isn't that why they call it executive privilege?

I've seen enough arguments about this to think that executive privilege only applies once the person actually takes office. Prior to that, Jan 20 2017 and before, is open game. Even after the election, but before taking office.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[soybean]

Keep in mind that Bannon is not Muellers primary target, Trump is.

 

[Lone Clone]

View embedded media

Well, Bannon can't assert executive privilege, anyway, anywhere, any time. The only person who can assert executive privilege is the executive, aka the president.

 

[Lone Clone]

I've seen enough arguments about this to think that executive privilege only applies once the person actually takes office. Prior to that, Jan 20 2017 and before, is open game. Even after the election, but before taking office.

I didn't realize that was the time frame. What you're talking about is what Gowdy was talking about when he said Bannon was inventing a new form of executive privilege.