« Half dozen GVRs provide only "excitement" for CJ fans in latest SCOTUS order list | Main | New DPIC report: "Deeply Rooted: How Racial History Informs Oklahoma’s Death Penalty" »
October 17, 2022
Feds urging six months' imprisonment and $200,000 fined for Steve Bannon as punishment following his convictions for criminal contempt of Congress
As detailed in this extended ABC News piece, the "Justice Department is asking a federal judge to sentence Steve Bannon, adviser to former President Donald Trump, to six months in prison and make him pay a $200,000 fine for his conviction on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, according to a new court filing." Here is more of the basics:
Bannon was found guilty in July of defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. He had been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September 2021.
Bannon is set to be sentenced on Friday at the D.C. courthouse by federal judge Carl Nichols at 9 a.m. His lawyers are expected to submit their own sentencing memo Monday.
The Government's 24-page sentencing memorandum is available at this link, and it starts this way:
From the moment that the Defendant, Stephen K. Bannon, accepted service of a subpoena from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (“the Committee”), he has pursued a bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt. The Committee sought documents and testimony from the Defendant relevant to a matter of national importance: the circumstances that led to a violent attack on the Capitol and disruption of the peaceful transfer of power. In response, the Defendant flouted the Committee’s authority and ignored the subpoena’s demands. The Defendant, a private citizen, claimed that executive privilege—which did not apply to him and would not have exempted his total noncompliance even if it had—justified his actions. Then, on the eve of trial, he attempted an about-face, representing to the Committee that former President Donald J. Trump had waived executive privilege and freed the Defendant to cooperate. But this proved a hollow gesture; when he realized that his eleventh-hour stunt would not prevent his trial, the Defendant’s cooperative spirit vanished. 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. For his sustained, bad-faith contempt of Congress, the Defendant should be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment—the top end of the Sentencing Guidelines’ range—and fined $200,000—based on his insistence on paying the maximum fine rather than cooperate with the Probation Office’s routine pre-sentencing financial investigation.
UPDATE: Steve Bannon has also today submitted his sentencing memorandum, which can be found at this link. Here is its starting "summary":
The ear of a sentencing judge listens for the note of contrition. Someone was convicted. Did they learn their lesson? This case requires something more. It involves larger themes that are important to every American. Should a person be jailed when the caselaw which sets forth the elements of the crime is outdated? 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. Because we believe that the answer to each of these questions is no, we respectfully ask this Court to impose a sentence of probation, and to stay the imposition of sentence pending appeal.
October 17, 2022 at 01:11 PM | Permalink
Comments
Should ask for the full one year.
Posted by: anon5 | Oct 17, 2022 2:22:29 PM
If I were the judge reading defense counsel's ideological screed, I would be tempted to double to sentence I was originally thinking about.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Oct 17, 2022 9:57:09 PM
Yes, of course. Judge should follow only his undisclosed (presumably) ideology.
Posted by: Fluffyross | Oct 18, 2022 10:09:44 AM
It seems like the guideline range is what is driving the AUSA's recommendation of six months instead of the maximum. While the facts of this case might justify an upward departure, arguing for a sentence at the high end of the guideline range will seem more reasonable to the trial judge.
Posted by: tmm | Oct 18, 2022 10:47:50 AM
I have no love for Bannon. They can nail his a$$ to the wall as far as I’m concerned. But how much of a fine and prison sentence did Obama’s “wing man” get for contempt of Congress?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Oct 18, 2022 9:41:04 PM