Big Bass

There was a jury, too.

federally indicted mattoid

Steve Bannon was convicted in court. He defied 2 congressional subpoenas. That'll get him a sentence. Possibly a fine. He might have to lose some of that $$$ he's been grifting off of chump supporters for his pretend to build the wall fundraiser.

It's great when justice happens.

But back to the topic. The hearings are not a trial. They are hearings.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Bannon says he is standing on principle, something the left knows absolutely nothing about!!!

federally indicted mattoid

Yes, such a principled guy

EmilyD

A hearing implies the general assessment of a case, wherein preliminary decision is taken by the committee regarding whether the case is to be pursued or not. These are oral arguments, in support of the case, to settle it or make a judgement or to decide relevant aspects of the case, to ascertain the way in which a possible trial will proceed.

In a hearing, both the parties, i.e. prosecution and defendant present material, facts, information and evidence before the committee concerning the case. After that the committee decides whether to hold the accused for trial or not on the basis of the evidence provided. Did you know that?

What is wrong is that the defendant is not being allowed to present their material, facts, information and evidence before the committee!

Get it???

kemmer

And that “principle” is protecting Trump and keeping his own ass out of jail.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

What's your point TDS? 👉

Rose42

You’re the one being evasive. Funny. You spend far too much time trying to be witty and it falls flat

Yes I’ve listened and I’ve also noted the timing of the hearings which could have been held much sooner.

Go ahead and pretend you don’t know of any reliable news sources. Or perhaps you’re another one who needs to be told what to think then never questions it

whole2th

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Let me explain to you and the one you are debating the purpose of Congressional Hearings. In a Congressional Hearing there is no prosecution and no defense. Those hearings are hearings held by the justice department and the Judicial Department. (The "justice department" refers to the executive branch's enforcement of the law. Whereas the Judicial Department is the third branch of government, it is the Courts.)

Legislative hearings
Committees hold legislative hearings on measures or policy issues that may become public law. Sometimes a committee holds hearings on multiple measures before ultimately choosing one vehicle for further committee and chamber action. Hearings provide a forum where facts and opinions can be presented from witnesses with varied backgrounds, including Members of Congress and other government officials, interest groups, and academics, as well as citizens likely to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposal.

Oversight hearings
Oversight hearings review or study a law, issue, or an activity, often focusing on the quality of federal programs and the performance of government officials. Hearings also ensure that the executive branch's execution goes with legislative intent, while administrative policies reflect the public interest. Oversight hearings often seek to improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of government operations. A significant part of a committee's hearings workload is dedicated to oversight. For example, on a single day, May 8, 1996, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing to look into a recent increase in gasoline prices; the Committee on Governmental Affairs held an oversight hearing on the Internal Revenue Service; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held an oversight hearing on the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; and the Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the impact of a recent Supreme Court case involving Indian gaming. Many committees oversee existing programs in the context of hearings on related legislation, or routinely perform oversight when it is time to reauthorize a program, so oversight hearings may be combined with legislative hearings.

Investigative hearings
Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress's stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congress's authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. The first such hearings were held by the House of Representatives in 1792 following St. Clair's Defeat in the Battle of the Wabash. Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army-McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congress's investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries.

Confirmation hearings
Confirmation hearings on presidential nominations are held in fulfillment of the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" responsibilities under the Appointments Clause. Each Senate committee holds confirmation hearings on presidential nominations to executive and judicial positions within its jurisdiction. These hearings often offer an opportunity for oversight into the activities of the nominee's department or agency. While the vast majority of confirmation hearings are routine, some are controversial.

Ratification hearings
The Senate, as required by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution, must consent to the ratification of treaties negotiated by the executive branch with foreign governments. In October 1999, for example, the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services held hearings on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Also that year the Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on ratifying tax treaties with Estonia, Venezuela, Denmark, and other nations.

Field hearings
Field hearings are Congressional hearings held outside Washington. The formal authority for field hearings is found implicitly in the chamber rules. Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 states that a committee "is authorized to hold hearings … at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate" as it sees fit. Otherwise, there is no distinction between field hearings and those held in Washington. In the 106th Congress, for example, the Committee on Commerce held a field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, on a liquid pipeline explosion in that city, and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a field hearing in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on a bill to review the ability of the National Laboratories to meet Department of Energy standards. While field hearings involve some matters different from Washington hearings, most of the procedural requirements are the same. However, funding for committee travel must meet regulations established by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

The Jan 6th committee is holding an Investigative hearing. According to Article I, of the Constitution, both the Senate and House have subpoena power. By ignoring a Congressional Subpoena, is against the law and criminal charges can be and should be pressed upon the witness. Steve Bannon refused to recognize the authority of the committee, claiming executive privilege. Bannon's argument may go to the Supreme Court.

So, hopefully this helps your argument EmilyD
.

federally indicted mattoid

You obviously don't.

federally indicted mattoid

Noted. You won't (likely can't) share "reliable" sources.

EmilyD

Ok. So it's fine and dandy that the committee conducting these hearings is one-sided and biased.

Got it.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Now the magical question....what do we the people do about it?

You just admitted that the committee is one sided. Now you have to make a choice, do you protect those hypocrites in office, or do you protest(by voting) against them?

Do you enjoy living in a two tier justice system?

federally indicted mattoid

Do you enjoy violence, you two?

Is that fine with you that cops were beaten?