Steve Bannon ordered to report to prison by July 1 A federal judge ordered Steve Bannon, the one-time adviser to former President Trump, to begin his four-month prison sentence in July as he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed with prosecutors at a Wednesday hearing, ordering Bannon must self-surrender by July 1 since his bid to overturn his conviction was rejected by a three-judge appeals panel last month. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4707337-steve-bannon-prison-appeals/ - June 2024 Meanwhile Merrick Garland and Eric Holder are free. Seems like some double standards there. In my view, the Constitutional issue of whether they actually have the right and it is appropriate to put Bannon in prison hinges on whether they actually had a legitimate reason to do the investigation that they subpoenaed Bannon for. Bannon knew the prosecutors would just try to use and twist whatever facts he said against Trump, as lawyers commonly do. Creating "evidence" out of facts that are not really evidence of anything at all. So Bannon did not want to play that game, or entertain the crusade Democrats were on, out to try to get Trump, accusing Trump of "insurrection" (both in widespread media coverage, and in hope of legal criminal charges). Maybe Bannon actually did want to conceal some discussions he had had with Trump. But wanting to conceal facts does not necessarily mean any real crime actually exists. Trump's political enemies seemed to want to apply a certain interpretation to the facts, which in my view was a huge stretch and bordering on the absurd. Most Congressional "investigations" and subpoenas just involve a lot of political grandstanding, to put on a political show, with media coverage and the public watching. The majority of the judges in the D.C. area lean towards support of the Democrat Party, so some political bias is a possibility, though it is considered a crime to refuse to show up and answer questions for a Congressional committee, if an individual has been issued a subpoena. From a civil liberties perspective, there could be a discussion about the right not to testify.
So should certain people be able to ignore subpoenas depending on who they are and their political persuasion?
Trump doesn't ignore subpoenas. If he's going to languish in a jail cell he'll make sure it's not for trivial reasons and to his advantage. He may be a criminal, but he's a canny guy. Bannon is less of a crook but arguably a more stupid one.
Holder partially complied by providing some documents and arguing executive privilege, whereas Bannon outright refused to comply. That probably explains the difference. Was Garland held in contempt?
