The weaponized and liberalized Department of Justice ran by radical leftist Attorney General Merrick Garland is seeking a six month prison sentence for former Trump top adviser and War Room general Steve Bannon.
Bannon according to the Department of Justice should pay a whopping $200,000 fine and serve six months in prison for refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena from the House select committee investigating the ridiculous Jan 6 incident that won’t away.
Federal prosecutors put forward the sentencing recommendations after Trump’s longtime ally was found guilty in July for two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to sit for a deposition and provide documents to the select committee.
The 68-year-old Bannon has “pursued a bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt” from the moment he was served the subpoena amid the congressional probe, prosecutors said in Monday’s 24-page sentencing memorandum.
“The rioters who overran the Capitol on January 6 did not just attack a building — they assaulted the rule of law upon which this country was built and through which it endures,” the filing said.
“By flouting the Select Committee’s subpoena and its authority, [Bannon] exacerbated that assault.”
So basically the way this ludicrous filing reads, it’s a Vengeance Sentence because Bannon wouldn’t kiss their ass, and has nothing to do with anything other than that.
Prosecutors argued that Bannon, who is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday, deserved the hefty sentence “because a person could have shown no greater contempt than the Defendant did in his defiance of the Committee’s subpoena.” What if you don’t agree with the committee at all? This is about as partisan of a recommendation as you can get America.
Each count of contempt of Congress is punishable by between 30 days to one year in prison and a fine ranging between $100 to $100,000.
Bannon’s attorneys had originally argued that he wasn’t going to give testimony because of executive privilege for President Trump. He reversed course on the eve of his trial and claimed Trump had waived executive privilege, which he did by sending Bannon a letter allowing him to testify.
Federal Prosecutors argued that their sentencing memorandum about Bannon’s privilege claims didn’t apply to him and wouldn’t have exempted “his total noncompliance” even if it had to.
“Despite the removal of the only purported barrier to his compliance, to this day the Defendant has not produced a single document to the Committee or appeared for testimony,” prosecutors said in the filing.
The DOJ also said they are seeking the maximum fine for Bannon as well, because as we stated, this is a Venge screwing, it’s got nothing to do with actual justice.
“Throughout the pendency of this case, the Defendant has exploited his notoriety — through courthouse press conferences and his War Room podcast — to display to the public the source of his bad-faith refusal to comply with the committee’s subpoena: a total disregard for government processes and the law,” the filing said.
“The defendant’s statements prove that his contempt was not aimed at protecting executive privilege or the Constitution, rather it was aimed at undermining the committee’s efforts to investigate an historic attack on government.”
US District Judge Carl Nichols last month denied Bannon’s request for a new trial after he claimed, in part, that the jury instructions in this case were flawed.
Bannon’s attorneys asked for a suspended sentence of probation while further appeals are carried out.
“Should a person be jailed when the caselaw which sets forth the elements of the crime is outdated?” lawyer Evan Corcoran asked. “Should a person be jailed for the doing the exact same thing that was done by the highest law enforcement officers in this country, yet they received no punishment? Should a person who has spent a lifetime listening to experts – as a naval officer, investment banker, corporate executive, and Presidential advisor – be jailed for relying on the advice of his lawyers? Should a person be jailed where the prosecutor declined to prosecute others who were similarly situated – with the only difference being that this person uses their voice to express strongly held political views?
“If the answer to any of these questions is no, then a sentence of probation is warranted … we believe that the answer to each of these questions is no,” Corcoran added.
Thanks to our friends at The New York Post for contributing to this article.
Support The DC Patriot at the links below
FaithNFreedoms.com – Our Apparel Brand
PreparewithMatt.com – Long lasting food from our friends at My Patriot Supply
Patreon.com/MattCouch – Support our work on Patreon