Or do you mean that they must first confirm that his testimony conforms to the Blue Narrative, and then establish that his public testimony must agree totally with his private testimony or he's guilty of perjury?
Why should he be given any chance at all to hijack the committee’s mission of finding the truth?
That's not what happens when a witness is sworn in and required to answer questions truthfully or be liable to perjury charges or charges of contempt for not cooperating. The questioning and testimony promotes the mission of finding the truth, not hijacking it.
Why can’t Bannon testify truthfully behind closed doors?
He can. But why can't he also testify publicly, as the others did? What is the Committee afraid of? only that he will say something contrary to the Blue Narrative they are promoting. But why do the hearings have to be rigged to promote only this narrative?
Perhaps he only wants to grandstand with the lies he has been peddling for Trump since 1/6?
translation: perhaps he will not conform to the Blue Narrative script the Demos insist must be followed by all witnesses without exception?
Why does anyone owe him a platform for his lies?
That a potential witness might be a chronic liar cannot be a criterion for excluding them from testifying, or from testifying publicly. There's no way a court or a Congressional Committee can objectively judge who is a liar and thus to be excluded from testifying. Or censored from testifying publicly. Maybe there are ways to measure how much each of us lies compared to others, and judge who are the worst liars. But the American justice system currently does not have an objective way to judge every person and put a dishonesty score on each one to judge which ones are so bad that they should be banned from testifying, or testifying publicly.
Rather than banning certain egregious liars from ever testifying, or testifying publicly, it's better to have enough safeguards in place to prevent them from misusing the court or the hearings, by having them confined to answering the questions, have the police present to subdue any witness who tries to disrupt the proceedings, etc. There are ways to prevent them from preaching rather than answering the questions.
The rules must require all witnesses to cooperate with the interrogation process, so that no particular obnoxious witness could ever abuse the proceedings, so there's no need to single out certain ones thought to be extra repugnant. If a witness goes wild and violently attacks someone or smashes something, of course the police have to drag that one away. Presumably the safeguards for that do exist. But just saying someone is a liar cannot be the rule for excluding their testimony, or excluding them from testifying publicly, if their testimony is needed in order to get the evidence.
Why did he never show up at ANY of the 63 court cases Trump lost, and show his evidence for electoral fraud!
That's no reason to exclude his testimony or banning it to a secret proceeding only. If his testimony is worthless, then exclude it entirely. Maybe in some cases a quack or charlatan is ignored altogether for good reason. But past bad behavior generally is not a reason to exclude their testimony in a current case where they have evidence that's needed. That a potential witness failed to do something in the past that he should have done is probably not a reason to disqualify them from testifying, or from testifying publicly.
If a witness is needed to provide evidence, and might even be a suspect as well, the option to testify publicly should be a right, even if also they are required to be questioned privately. This private session cannot be used as a trick to screen them in advance to make sure they will follow a script assigned for them to follow, with a threat of perjury charges if their public testimony might depart from the advance session. If the preliminary session is necessary, the witness should be free in the public testimony to repudiate any part of the private testimony, with no risk of perjury charges brought against them.
The House Dems will arrange for Bannon to testify publicly, if they are genuinely interested in getting the truth rather than just propagandizing.
Let me help you out, Lumpy;
HE HAS NO EVIDENCE and neither does anyone else, because TRUMP LOST, and there was NO FRAUD.
Then there's no reason for the Committee to issue a subpoena to him, or ask him to testify. Publicly or privately.
But Trump can’t handle losing, hence the Big Lie. If he or anyone else lied about that in court they would be jailed. So nobody showed up in court saying “I witnessed person x committing electoral fraud”. 63 times, often before Trump-appointed judges.
The truth is not a Dem narrative. But the truth does not agree with right wing extremist lies and conspiracy crap, so liars like Bannon scream bloody murder. Nobody owes him a platform for lies.
These are reasons for him to not testify at all. But apparently the Committee has reasons to want his testimony.
But they seem to want to separate the witnesses into 2 categories: 1) Those whose testimony promotes the Committee's narrative, who testify publicly, for propaganda purposes; and 2) Those whose testimony would undermine the Committee's narrative, and thus are suppressed or banned to secret session.
