Bannon's Prison Sentence Is Over and He Has Nothing New To Say
Recently released and unrepentant, Steve Bannon returns one week before Election Day with his same old talking points.

Why did more than 75 news people cram into a Park Avenue hotel room meant for maybe half that number yesterday? Because Steve Bannon was released from a low-security prison in Danbury, Connecticut, and, ostensibly, we wanted to hear what Donald Trump's former campaign manager had to say one week before a presidential election that is anybody's to lose.
Perhaps we just wanted to see the show, which included several dudes on the podium who looked like they had just left prep school—a Tucker Carlson Jr. squad in suits and sneaks—including a guy reporters thought resembled either Sam Bankman-Fried or a younger Charlie Kirk.
"They're maybe two, three years old," he said, when someone in the press pool commented on his sweet Jordans. "Anyone want to take a picture?"
Several did, as we waited for the press conference Bannon had called to start. More reporters arrived, leaving several of us pretzeled on the floor.
"I'm getting too old to do this," said an NBC correspondent who looked younger than 40.
Bannon finally appeared, looking marginally slimmer and wearing only one button-down shirt under a jacket you might wear for duck hunting, and was greeted by a light smattering of applause.
"Thank you everybody for coming," he said. "The first statement I made from Danbury, I think four weeks ago, was that victory was coming, that you could see the collapse of this kind of phony campaign of the politics of joy."
Bannon disparaged the "politics of joy" eight times during his 39 minutes of remarks. He would seven times bring up the name of attorney Marc Elias, who filed multiple lawsuits against Trump following the 2020 election and who has now been hired by the Harris campaign. He engaged in the ritual airing of grievances, repeatedly labeling the Biden administration, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and especially former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as evildoers—accusations that did not quite land. Though Bannon had been in prison only four months for defying a Congressional subpoena investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the exercise felt stale, like asking us to root hard against last season's Marvel villains.
There was likewise nothing fresh in what Bannon was offering, nor would he be backing down from the idea that Biden's victory in 2020 was illegitimate.
"The 2020 election was stolen," he said. "I will never back off that."
This played well with some in attendance, such as Trump lawyer Mike Davis, who last year said on-air, "We're gonna deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing….We're gonna put kids in cages. It's gonna be glorious," or Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who told a committee after the August would-be assassination attempt on Trump, "I don't think [the Secret Service] regarded Trump as a worthy protectee [sic]. They were doing the absolute minimum," or author Eric Metaxas, who was caught on camera punching someone he said was a protester after Trump's 2020 Republican National Convention speech.
Others were not so obliging.
"You're out of prison, and looking back on the last January 6th and the fact that you incited a mob that ended up with police being injured, I just wonder if you reflected on that at all," asked The Bulwark's Tim Miller.
Bannon deflected, saying that former Vice President Mike Pence "didn't handle it correctly."
"So, no change," said Miller.
"No, no, no," Bannon said. "Absolutely no change."
NBC's Vaughn Hillyard picked up the thread. "Four years ago you urged then-President Trump to declare victory on election night when you knew full well that there was going to be a decent chance that we would not know [the results] because ballots had yet to be counted," Hillyard said. "Have you urged him to do the same thing on this election night?"
"The Democratic party was going to steal the election with illegitimate mail-in ballots," Bannon retorted.
"They were not illegitimate ballots. They were mail ballots that American voters cast," interrupted Hillyard, wanting to know whether Bannon would be urging Trump to not accept the election results this time around.
Bannon said a lot of words that can be translated as: Absolutely no change.
In truth, this made me want to smash my head against a rock. There was not going to be any introspection or cosmic relief with the reappearance of one of Trump's cavalcade of colorful characters, at least not from the characters themselves.
"Steve! Robby Roadsteamer here!" came a voice from the second row. The man, wearing a red suit and black fright wig, was on his feet and insinuating that he and Bannon had been in Danbury prison together. "And I'm wondering when's the next insurrection? Can we storm the Burger King after this?"
Bannon nodded at two beefy men near the podium.
"He looks like Yoda with AIDS right now!" Roadsteamer shouted "No political violence!" as he was dragged past Bannon and bumped into two photographers, one and a half of whom landed on top of me.
This might have given the proceedings a bit of a carnival atmosphere—but no, or at least not much. It was all reheated; a demonstration of the public's lack of enthusiasm for either candidate.
Bannon nattered on. He floated the idea that "Trump could get up to over 300 electoral votes" and expressed a nonsensical desire to "get back to the sunlit uplands of talking about money and control and money" before getting in another jab at Pelosi—a figure who evidently had him plotting on his pillow in the clink.
"Nancy Pelosi thought a federal prison was going to break me. Well, it empowered me," Bannon said. "So Nancy Pelosi, suck on that."
One reporter wanted to know: If Vice President Kamala Harris were declared the winner next week, would Bannon "unequivocally condemn political violence?"
"Who believes in political violence? That's a loaded question," he answered. "I was just a political prisoner of a regime that put somebody in prison for what has been a civil charge [throughout] the history of the country."
Bannon continued, "I am proud that I went as a political prisoner to Danbury Prison. I served my country on a Navy destroyer in my 20s and I served my country in a federal prison in my 70s. If you are not prepared to be thrown in prison by this weaponized Justice Department, then you're not prepared to stand up and fight for your country, and I will never back down from this."
Light applause.
Bannon closed as he opened—dinging Harris's "incoherent politics of joy," and then he left the stage. He had an episode of his podcast The War Room to record. Someone handed him a dozen roses, which he immediately handed back.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I love you Nancy, but we should be celebrating the fact that the regime let a political prisoner go. Not bemoaning the fact he doesn't sound like Solzhenitsyn.
I love you Nancy,
At the end of the day, she's just another journalist. She's going to let you down.
I'm like Doc Brown level optimist and this fact still breaks my heart
I think ‘journalist’ is a stretch.
I mean, I can't disagree with a lot of her sense that this was a sham of a spectacle.
Whether you agree with Bannon or not, this was a sham. Bannon got the chance to air his grievances, and his payment was having to endure a bunch of oppo reporters asking him the same gotcha questions they ask of every Trump confidant.
I think Rommelmann is pretty much right that the noteworthy bit is that reporters went to this thinking that Bannon would be cowed by being thrown in prison and Bannon pointed out that political intimidation was all that this was about.
Other than that, it was a scripted event, not much more surprising than your average WCW match.
When folks tell the truth, there is nothing new to say.
BINGO!
Nailed it.
"Bannon disparaged the "politics of joy" eight times during his 39 minutes of remarks."
Yeesh, Kamala's campaign dropped that "joy" thing weeks ago! Get with the times old man!
"Strength through Joy" but somehow Trump is Hitler.
Come to think about it, as a Brahmin, Kamala is more Aryan than Trump.
News is always a couple weeks behind in the pen.
Did these accusations not quite land because they were delivered straight and without humour, or did they not land because it was a roomful of journalisming students who are 100% behind Merrick Garland, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris and the Biden administration?
There's also the off chance, implicit in part of Nancy's reporting, that you're thinking far too deeply about this. That a lecture about oppression by 'the politics of joy' from one of the oppressed just generally rings hollow in an audience for whom 300 miles between Tesla charging stations and the inability to order locally-sourced gay wedding pizzas anywhere in the country constitutes oppression.
I think we know that
"'You're out of prison, and looking back on the last January 6th and the fact that you incited a mob that ended up with police being injured, I just wonder if you reflected on that at all,' asked The Bulwark's Tim Miller."
And have you stopped beating your wife? What a clown.
The Bullwark is the CIA, right? It has been a minute, but I am pretty sure they are one of the downstream news orgs run by the CIA.
That's my understanding. But libertarians are cool with the CIA and political prosecutions these days. Also censorship and food trucks.
Wish he asked Tim when his balls will finally descend and he can finally be a man.
Well, he WAS a political prisoner. The officials who put him in jail are no longer in control of the House of Representatives. And the demagoguery of the Trump Administration is only a little less subtle than the authoritarianism of the previous umpteen administrations. So the reporter was bored. He didn't hear anything earthshakingly new. So surprised ...
What the fuck is this headline? You want government imprisonment to change people's thinking? Off fucking contempt charges???
Wicked, wicked Steve Bannon, unrepentant. I should be writing the headlines, not this ignorant sow.
The only thing of value here is the comments, and it’s a good thing they are free.
Apparently commenting privileges now require a subscription to Reason Plus. I live in terror that I'll somehow be discovered and be billed retroactively.
This is sad. If Stossel starts simping for The Regime, it’s time to leave
So Reason continues with the celebration of taking political prisoners. Fuck off you evil marxist cunts. Ever going to go through the same histrionics over the perpetrators of the mostly peaceful riots of 2020 or are those still perfectly fine protests, or the multiple times Democrats stormed the capitol? You all are a joke, too transparently stupid to even qualify as regime propagandists.
Biden loves to arrest and imprison those who have the temerity to question his policies.
I wonder what other leaders in history have done that?
Yeah. But it would be wrong to investigate politicians who abused their power. - sarc
Keir Starmer?
C'mon man! He's not some self-serving tyrant! He meant "Nobody fucks with a Biden (*plural*)."
Actually, this particular defendant was referred by Congress to DOJ for wilful contempt. He could have purged himself of the contempt, but instead CHOSE to be a martyr.
So now he can grift on the martyr image. While he doesn't sell bibles, gay photoshop images of himself, shoes, stocks or steaks like dear leader, make no mistake. HE WILL GRIFT.
I think he may actually still be looking at charges for all the money he and others raised to build the wall (that mexico is paying for) and just stole. That will never NOT be funny. When you ask yourself, how flipping dumb can a Trump supporter actually be, remember thousands of them sent millions of dollars to Steve fkn Bannon to build a 1200mile wall on the Mexican border. HA! Makes me laugh every time.
"When you ask yourself, how flipping dumb can a Trump supporter actually be..."
Like how flipping dumb a Biden supporter can be by cheering our notorious POTUS closing gas pipelines, stop offshore drilling, giving a terrorist state like Iran billions or the most corrupt regime in Europe, the Ukraine over $100 billion, fall UP a flight of stairs instead of down, producing one word salad after another, increasing inflation, trying to end the use of fossil fuels, etc.
Don't forget approving Nordstream 2. Which led directly to the invasion of Ukraine. That's a lot of blood on Dem hands.
You misspelled "blowing up gas pipelines".
""So now he can grift on the martyr image""
Wouldn't be possible if they treated him like pretty much everyone else who was found in contempt of Congress.
IIRC Obama's AG was found in contempt. How much time did he serve?
""I think he may actually still be looking at charges for all the money he and others raised to build the wall (that mexico is paying for) and just stole.""
This stuff goes in the rabbit hole faster than Bill Clinton can feel up your wife. What happened to all the money the Clinton foundation raised for Haiti? Rabbit hole.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-clinton-foundations-legacy-in-haiti-haitians_b_57f604f9e4b087a29a5486fd
Might be worth a nice investigation.
People should suffer by the rules they impose on others.
Well, that's not how the party plays the game.
"So now he can grift on the martyr image."
You don't actually know what "grift" means, do you?
And if you Nazis are worried about him looking like a martyr, you should probably stop trying to martyr him.
Hmm...let's see. Advise Trump that his base is receptive to anti-immigrant racist rhetoric and it would be just good politics to campaign on 'building a wall' to keep the rapists and thugs and murderers out and to make it even more appealing, tell them Mexico will pay for it. THEN (and this is key here) when Mexico doesn't pay for it, but your base thinks the Wall is the best idea ever...set up a fund to collect donations to build it yourself. Raise millions of dollars from the MAGA faithful. PAY YOURSELF ridiculous amounts of money; don't build the wall and pretend the democrats/bureaucracy sabotaged your brilliant plan.
I don't know what you think a grift is, but promising impossible things to stupid people and getting them to pay for that which you cannot deliver is pretty damn grifty to me. Or in legal terms, FRAUD.
F him and f you for supporting him screwing over your compatriots. By the way, how many Loonies and Toonies did you send to Bannon?
“I don’t know what you think a grift is, but promising impossible things to stupid people and getting them to pay for that which you cannot deliver is pretty damn grifty to me. Or in legal terms, FRAUD.”
That is a cornerstone of the democrat party, and if it’s fraud, then you are an accessory. You should write a letter confessing to your endless crimes and then take the honorable way out and kill yourself.
I don't know why you think disparaging me is a defense of Steve Bannon ripping off MAGA faithful. But this thread is about him.
I would recommend that you cash your welfare check and buy some homo erotic NFT's of a shirtless and very oily/muscled Trump pretending to be a fireman or something.
"Actually, this particular defendant was referred by Congress to DOJ for wilful contempt. He could have purged himself of the contempt, but instead CHOSE to be a martyr."
Trump declared presidential immunity on the documents requested. When Trump dropped that, he offered them immediately. They refused to charged him.
Fuck the lot of them and fuck you for justifying it.
Is that so?
Did a court ever weigh in on the immunity claim?
Nope. Standard procedure was ignored.
Yes.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/15/judge-rejects-bannons-effort-to-dismiss-criminal-case-for-defying-jan-6-select-committee-00039888
The case was after the contempt charges were filed.
Was there a ruling prior to the charges being filed that denied presidential privilege?
First of all, you asked if a court ever ruled on the immunity claim. Yes a court did, and I showed that a court did. Jesse completely lied to you when he said "no".
Second, typically courts don't rule on a claim unless there is a case before it to be judged. Bannon's contempt case was that case. So I don't know under what theory that a court would have ruled on the matter without a case.
Pedo Jeffy (can I just call, you ‘Pedo? I feel we know each other pretty well) we all know that you are the one constantly lying here.
When he refused to show he was asserting executive privilege. Trump was as well.
Normally this would go to courts to determine applicability.
When Trump dropped his assertions, Cannon agreed to testify. Instead of allowing testimony they asked DoJ to hold him in contempt instead.
Others who DoJ has refused to pursue contempt on:
Eric Holder, Valarie Jarret, Hunter Biden, Garland, etc. Etc.
Are you sure you're an attorney?
Fact check time for Jesse!
When he refused to show he was asserting executive privilege. Trump was as well.
This part is true. However...
Normally this would go to courts to determine applicability.
And it did. The judge in Bannon's case ruled that executive privilege didn't apply. Bannon chose not to appeal this ruling. Hmm.
When Trump dropped his assertions, Cannon agreed to testify.
This is also true. However...
Instead of allowing testimony they asked DoJ to hold him in contempt instead.
The timeline is not correct here. The Jan. 6 committee had already referred the matter to the DOJ long before Trump waived his executive privilege claims.
The Jan. 6 committee referred the matter to the full House on Oct. 19, 2021.
The House voted to refer Bannon to DOJ for criminal contempt on Oct. 21, 2021.
A grand jury indicted Bannon on Nov. 12, 2021.
Bannon tried to claim executive privilege as a defense in February 2021. That claim was rejected by the judge on June 15, 2022.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/15/judge-rejects-bannons-effort-to-dismiss-criminal-case-for-defying-jan-6-select-committee-00039888
And it was not until July 10, 2022, just one week before Bannon's trial was supposed to start, that Trump waived his executive privilege claims.
So he was not charged with criminal contempt AFTER Trump waived his claims. The legal process was already well under way at that point.
So the prosecutors, just one week before trial, understandably viewed Bannon's claim that he would now happily testify, as "too little too late". It could be argued that the prosecutors at that point perhaps should have been magnanimous and decided to offer a plea deal to drop charges in exchange for testimony, or something. But then again, Bannon could have offered to testify on June 15, 2022, when the judge had already ruled that executive privilege didn't apply and Bannon didn't appeal that ruling.
I think it is true that the DOJ was trying to make an example out of Bannon. But it is also true that Bannon was playing games and his very last minute offer to testify was not offered entirely in good faith.
Who do you think you're kidding, Lying Jeffy?
Jeffy fails to mention when the courts ruled on the immunity claim before the House referred contempt charges to the DoJ.
This is why you're an evil liar. Everything above I wrote is true. You know it is true, since you didn't even attempt to refute any of it. But you don't like it, so you instead try to paint it as false with smears. This is your way of trying to suppress truthful information that contradicts your team.
""I think it is true that the DOJ was trying to make an example out of Bannon""
Why Bannon? I think we all know the reason.
I would think an AG with a contempt of congress would be a better example if want to make an example of someone in contempt. But hey, the swamp isn't going to make an example of itself. Just the outsiders.
I thought I got used to the lefty hypocrisy, but you are either utterly blind to your own or you are maliciously attempting to delete history.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy?
The tears are so delicious.
>>Recently released and unrepentant
I totes love your true jornolistic ways most of the time but fuck you repentant for what?
Nancy is one of the few reporters left.
This is her style. Just reporting what she experiences. She isn't a political reporter, though she reports on political things. Press conferences are an odd choice for her talents.
Kind of like putting Shohei Ohtani in as a relief pitcher. Sure, he knows how to throw a ball, but not the best use of his talents.
>>She isn’t a political reporter
should have stopped short demanding repentance of a political prisoner.
Even politics aside, expecting a tune change from someone who served 4 mos. for contempt would be like Shohei Ohtani throwing an opening pitch to first base.
A perfect opportunity to review the corruption, machinations, and destruction of evidence by the Jan 6 committee, and reflect on the legitimacy of the subpoena Steve ignored in relation to the alleged authority of the committee.
And we get this rambling?
How stupid is this article...Nancy who?
The best journalist currently working for reason, but they can't all be gems.
The only journalist at Reason. The rest retweet NYT and WH press releases.
Don’t forget X, (formerly Twitter).
If she's the best, I must ask myself what I am doing here. Then I remember...it's for all the love!
😉
Her name is McGill, but she calls herself "Lill"
"In truth, this made me want to smash my head against a rock."
You want to smash your head on a rock because Steve Bannon talks exactly like Steve Bannon instead of some mystical soothsayer who instantly conjures up the solutions to all our problems, solutions that everyone who hears them will recognize as "the Truth"? You must want to smash your head against a rock a lot.
Hmmm... let's go back a bit:
"The 2020 election was stolen," (Bannon) said. "I will never back off that."
Then one "reporter" states as "fact" that Bannon incited a Mob on J6, which he did not. Then a Mockingbird propagandist from NBC declares there were no illegitimate mail-in ballots, as if he knows something the rest of us, including ACTUAL investigative reporters, do not. But Nancy the "reporter" accepts the official line without question.
Then "Bannon said a lot of words..." which made this "reporter" wish to smash her head against a rock, but she can't be bothered to tell us what those words were. I suspect there might have been more to the story, but either way, she doesn't give her readers the option to see it.
This is just more typical accepting of the establishment bullshit and gaslighting than anyone with a libertarian mindset should ever accept. Reason strikes out yet again.
I wonder if anyone at the FBI will be held in contempt for refusing to comply with Congress' request for the number of Federal assets in the crowd on January 6, and if any of them were seen to be inciting any of the rioting?
It's already been confirmed that the number of Federal assets in that crowd was > 0.
The swamp isn't going to go after itself.
The “stolen election” crowd is made up of idelogical zealots, almost identical the the flat earthers. You can’t use facts when talking to them, they merely dismiss objective facts as false. It would be funny if there weren’t so many of them, but they compromise almost 10% of the population.
I see some difference in the “stolen election” crowd and the “illegitimate election” crowd.
Stolen or not, the pandemic created an environment where election law was violated so people would not have to gather at a polling place. Combine that with a political party that was hell bent on getting Trump out by all means. Would they resort to cheating after all other means failed? Yes. That’s not proof that they did, but it is motive. Did they have opportunity? It appears so, but again not proof. I can at least understand why someone would think it was stolen, even if not true.
On the other hand, you had people calling the 2016 election as illegitimate because of smear campaign which included a dossier created by a former British agent and a Russian nationalist. At best, the Russians bought some Facebook ads.
Neither is good. I believe there is a force that wants to destroy our nation by delegitimizing our institutions. So far they are doing a great job.
I hear that while the election law was being violated some people even masturbated over it (but to be fair - they weren't directly taking part in the 'violating')
I thought Reason.com was opposed to political re-education camps.