Stephen K. Bannon’s legal representative, David Schoen, issued a detailed statement today regarding the appeals court’s ruling. The court ruled that it did not have the power to overturn a 1961 precedent set by an appeals court panel on the interpretation of “willfulness” in contempt of Congress statutes. The decision involves Bannon’s ongoing legal battle for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas.
Gateway Pundit previously reported that the Biden administration is one step closer to jailing former Trump aide and conservative firebrand Steve Bannon.
Steven Bannon is also the host of “The War Room,” the most pro-MAGA podcast.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction for defying a subpoena related to the January 6 sham investigation.
Bannon does not need to report to prison immediately. He has seven days to request en banc review (a decision by the full court) or petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
After three hours of deliberation, a Washington, D.C., jury found Steven Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress in July 2022 for his refusal to submit to the controversial and completely biased January 6 Special Committee summons.
A federal judge previously denied Steve Bannon’s request for a new trial and dismissal in his contempt of Congress case.
Bannon refused to provide documents to the January 6 committee because President Trump asserted executive privilege.
Bannon argued that “under the long-standing authority of the U.S. Department of Justice, you should not testify or provide documents.”
Mike Davis, a former Gorsuch staffer and frequent guest in Bannon’s “war room,” said, “Today’s D.C. Circuit ruling on Steve Bannon’s claim of executive privilege is both shameful and predictable because Washington The courts are filled with partisans and cowards.
The following is David Schoen’s full and unmodified statement regarding Friday’s decision by the Court of Appeal:
A Court of Appeal jury ruled today that it did not have the power to overturn a 1961 court jury decision in Licavoli on the definition of the word “willful” as used in the contempt of Parliament statute. Bannon will now seek compensation from the full Court of Appeal, which has the power to overturn Licavolli’s ruling.
A Court of Appeal jury ruled today that it did not have the power to overturn a 1961 court jury decision in Licavoli on the definition of the word “willful” as used in the contempt of Parliament statute. Bannon will now seek compensation from the full Court of Appeal, which has the power to overturn Licavolli’s ruling.
This case involves a number of fundamentally important constitutional issues. Today’s decision is wrong from a legal perspective and reflects a very dangerous view of the threshold of criminal liability for any defendant in our country and a political abuse of the congressional hearing process going forward.
The Justice Department argued in court that the panel did not have the power to overturn the Licavoli panel’s decision – only the full court could do so. The Department of Justice should support the petition for rehearing by the full court and allow the full court to review this important legal issue.
As the trial court judge wrote earlier in this case. The Court’s definition in Licavoli “is inconsistent with modern case law on the use of the term, let alone the traditional definition of the word.” The Court of Appeal en banc should clarify this and correct the Licavoli panel’s mistake.
When Steve Bannon’s attorney, Robert Costello, received a subpoena requiring Mr. Bannon to testify before the committee on January 6, he received instructions from President Trump that he would respond to the subpoena Invoking executive privilege, Mr. Costello did two things:
1. He informed Mr. Bannon in no uncertain terms that by law he was prohibited from responding to the subpoena in any way—executive privilege had been asserted and it was not his prerogative to waive it; and
2. Mr. Costello wrote to the committee to inform them that if the committee resolved any privilege issues with President Trump or they took the matter to court and the court ordered Mr. Bannon to comply. Bannon was accused of “willfully defaulting” in response to a congressional subpoena.
In the United States, we do not criminally prosecute, let alone convict and send to prison, people who not only do not believe their actions are wrong or illegal, but who follow their own advice. The law does not allow them to comply with congressional subpoenas. President Trump clearly confirmed in writing to the trial court that he had indeed invoked executive privilege regarding the subpoena Bannon received.
A: For decades, it has been a clear jurisprudential principle, as reiterated by the U.S. Supreme Court in decisions over the past several years, that it is wrong for purposes of criminal liability to “knowingly” require a defendant to act in a manner that he or she knew to and violated the law. The appeals court panel issuing the ruling today found that it was bound by a 1961 ruling known as Licavoli, which held that “intention” in the context of Congress’s contempt of court statute does not require a belief that the conduct was wrong ; Rather, what matters is whether the subpoena was issued and whether the recipient complied. Licavoli does not involve executive privilege.
B. Long-standing constitutional principles, exhaustively recognized and identified by the Department of Justice in binding opinions over decades, make clear that any such definition when invoking executive privilege violates the fundamental principle of the separation of powers. The president or former president has the authority to decide when and under what circumstances executive privilege is invoked, and only the courts, not the committee issuing the subpoena, can arbitrate whether executive privilege applies and its scope.
Mr. Costello asked the committee to let a judge decide; they had no interest. The committee is simply trying to gain the political mileage it believes it will gain by pursuing contempt.
It is unreasonable to hold a private citizen criminally liable for responding to a subpoena in a manner that an attorney tells him is the only way permitted by law, especially when constitutional principles such as executive privilege are involved. Today, the panel considers that it is bound by the 1961 Licavoli judgment, although the interpretation of the word “intentional” in the context of criminal law has for decades clearly required some determination that the defendant believed that his conduct was wrong of.
C. The judge presiding over the case clearly wrote that Licavoli’s definition was irreconcilable with either the traditional or modern definition of “intentional,” but his hands were tied by precedent and he could not overturn it. Likewise, as the prosecution argued, the panel held that it did not have the authority to overturn and be bound by the Licavoli panel’s ruling. That is why all parties should agree that the case should be heard by a full bench of the Court of Appeal.
D. The Government persuaded the trial court to prohibit Mr. Bannon from presenting any evidence to the jury as to why he responded as he did to the Committee’s subpoena. Interestingly, even in the Licavoli case, the jury was allowed to hear the defendant’s side of the story. The jury in Bannon’s case was not allowed to learn that he complied with his attorney’s orders and what those orders were. He is barred from entering any defense, and prosecutors can argue to the jury that Mr. Bannon simply ignored the subpoena because he believed he was above the law. They knew he didn’t ignore it, and that his attorney told him the law didn’t allow him to comply; but the jury didn’t know that either.
E. It is also troubling that the Court in this case recognized that Mr. Bannon could not challenge the repeated violations of House rules during the formation of the 1/6 Committee and the decision to imprison Mr. Bannon.
Every American who is called to testify before Congress should be able to rely on a fair hearing before a reasonably organized body. Speaker Pelosi violated the rules and etiquette of the House of Representatives by forming a 1/6 committee in this way, and also violated the trust of the American people.
Promised to create a committee to “investigate” the 1/6 incident; but she appointed Rep. Benny Thompson as chairman, and Thompson filed a lawsuit claiming he suffered personal injury as a result of the incident he was supposed to investigate, and that he was The incidents were blamed before the investigation began.
The committee is filled with political partisans who hold regular press conferences to reiterate their opinions without conducting any investigation. During the subpoena process, House Rules were blatantly violated with impunity. These violations go to the heart of the integrity of the process, as the House’s recent findings revealed; but the court said it would not consider any violations related to Mr. Bannon’s subpoena. The DOJ asked the court to refuse to consider the violations, and the court agreed. We believe a comprehensive review would be beneficial to the country.
Other constitutional issues are raised on appeal, and we will ask the Court en banc to consider them because they are in direct conflict with other authorities of this Court and the United States Supreme Court. This is the next step.
