'Why isn't Bannon in prison?' Ex-prosecutor has concerns about judge in Trump ally's case

Zeedox

Resident Canadian
Dec 1, 2020
8,935
7,020
113
Canada's Ocean Playground

Ex-prosecutor Joyce Vance raised the concern on her Civil Discourse Substack blog. She asked the question, "Why isn’t Bannon in prison to serve his sentence following the Court of Appeals decision to affirm his conviction?"

"He’s been close before, but then, nothing. Peter Navarro, who was convicted and sentenced for the same crime, has been in custody and is almost done serving his sentence at FCI Miami," Vance wrote.

She went on to say that Navarro, another Trump advisor in the former White House administration, "did not receive a bond to stay out of custody while appealing."

"Judge Carl Nichols, who oversaw the proceedings against Bannon and granted that appeals bond, happens to be a Trump appointee who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. He is the only judge on the District Court in the District of Columbia who ruled the government couldn’t use the obstruction statute against January 6 participants, leading to the case currently pending in front of the Supreme Court. Following the decision by a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit on May 10, 2024, affirming Bannon’s conviction, the government asked Judge Nichols to order Bannon into custody. That should have been routine."

 
Same reason Trump will never go even if sentenced. The judges will allow them to stay out pending appeals. They have upwards of three appeals, each can take a tear or two to play out.

Bannon just had the ruling on his first a few weeks ago. Now he'll appeal to the upper court which will take another year at least.

Then he'll have one more after that.
 

The order by Judge Carl Nichols came three weeks after federal prosecutors urged him to lift a stay on Bannon’s sentence pending an appeal of his conviction for failing to comply with a subpoena from a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

A federal appeals court panel in a unanimous ruling on May 10 upheld Bannon’s conviction in the case.

Outside of court, Schoen told reporters, “The decision has it wrong factually in many many ways, it’s a horrible decision.”

He said Bannon’s appeal needs to be taken by the Supreme Court. Schoen has argued that Bannon was not guilty of contempt because Bannon’s lawyer at the time had advised him not to comply with the House’s subpoena.

Doesn't that become a matter between Bannon and his lawyer another time?
 
Bannon was originally told that he can remain out on bond during the appeals process.

That appeal took s year and a half. He is now appealing that appeal to a higher court.

Being as it is still part of the appeals process, he and his lawyer (and frankly, me as well) assumed he would remain out on bail until the final appeal is over.

I don't think this is quite over yet.

Anyway, Dan Rather weighed in:

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zeedox