Bannon again

Here's a quick follow-up to last night's post on Bannon. In our previous installment, I argued against the proposition that Bannon has flipped -- and I scoffed at Rachel Maddow/Robert Palmer theory that Mueller, not Trump, was the one who ordered Bannon to stonewall the Intel Committee. Now we have this, from the Hill...

President Trump reportedly ordered that former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon limit his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

Trump's decision came after receiving advice from Uttam Dhillon, a deputy White House counsel, Foreign Policy reports.

Dhillon reportedly thought the administration could have legitimate executive privilege claims in the situation, sources told Foreign Policy. But Dhillon also found the administration doesn't have legitimate executive privilege claims to limit the testimony of Bannon and other officials from giving information to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The obvious question: Why is Steve Bannon still taking orders from Donald Trump?

Everything is transactional with these guys. Bannon must be motivated by either a threat or a promise. A stick or a carrot. Or both.

So what is the carrot and what is the stick?

(I love Maddow, but on this occasion, she went down the wrong trail.)