The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
D.C. Circuit Denies Stephen Bannon's Appeal of Contempt of Congress Conviction
A unanimous panel finds Bannon's arguments foreclosed by controlling precedent.
Today a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Stephen Bannon's appeal of his conviction for contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Judge Garcia wrote the opinion in United States v. Bannon, joined in full by Judges Pillard and Walker.
Here's how Judge Garcia summarizes the case:
In September 2021, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol issued a subpoena to appellant Stephen Bannon to testify and provide documents. Bannon did not comply—he knew what the subpoena required but did not appear or provide a single document. Bannon was later convicted of violating the contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. § 192, which criminalizes "willfully" failing to respond to a congressional subpoena. Bannon insists that "willfully" should be interpreted to require bad faith and argues that his noncompliance does not qualify because his lawyer advised him not to respond to the subpoena. This court, however, has squarely held that "willfully" in Section 192 means only that the defendant deliberately and intentionally refused to comply with a congressional subpoena, and that this exact "advice of counsel" defense is no defense at all. See Licavoli v. United States, 294 F.2d 207, 207 (D.C. Cir. 1961). As both this court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly explained, a contrary rule would contravene the text of the contempt statute and hamstring Congress's investigatory authority. Because we have no basis to depart from that binding precedent, and because none of Bannon's other challenges to his convictions have merit, we affirm.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eric Holder?
Oops - someone forgot to prosecute for the same crime of contempt of congress
And a few others
Holder has an "Immutable Characteristic" that makes him immune from prosecution
The Holder case is (D)ifferent.
Disaffected, whining right-wingers with persecution complexes are among my favorite culture war casualties.
One of the judges directing Bannon toward prison (unanimous panel) is a Trump-nominated, Federalist Society-certified, Kentucky clinger selected consequent to his social injustice views rather than anything he had accomplished. That an un-American kook like Steve Bannon belongs in prison seems to be a bipartisan sentiment.
"Bannon should go to prison because I don't like him"
Very rooted in judicial principals, nice.
And so much for DOJ's long-standing position that the contempt of Congress statute does not apply to executive officials who assert Presidential claims of executive privilege. 250 years of constitutional executive privilege gone. Just like the immunity ruling, the DC Circuit Court is really distinguishing itself. Just not in a good way.
Bannon resigned/was fired (by Trump) in 2017. He was being summoned to testify about events which took place in 2020 and 2021, most of which did not directly involve Trump.
Executive privilege never applied in this case--Trump's lawyer even confirmed that he never invoked it. But even if it had, all it would have entitled Bannon to do was refuse to answer certain questions touching upon the privileged communications--not to refuse to testify about anything.
It is absurd to deny executive privilege to top presidential advisors and you’re either lying or misinformed about the issues here. Bannon’s counsel has noted that President Trump expressly confirmed to the trial court in writing that he had invoked executive privilege with respect to the subpoena Bannon received. And there are more constitutional and legal issues with this farce. The “investigative” committee itself was not fairly constituted and certainly didn’t conduct fair hearings. It’s just another expression of the lawfare abuses to which President Trump himself is also subject. I wonder what your position will be when President Trump's DOJ investigates and prosecutes the dirt bags, and their advisors (presidential or otherwise) engaged in these lawfare abuses?
Now you’re just back to outright lying. No such privilege was invoked; the exact opposite is true. Moreover, as has been repeatedly explained, the proper response, even if executive privilege has been invoked, is to appear and refuse to answer specific questions covered by the privilege — not to simply refuse to participate at all.
This is such a telling MAGA argument: “We’re going to act in bad faith, so nyah, nyah!”
For Democrats everything. For Republicans the law!
The DC Court is going to deny any appeal by someone without a (D).
Biden, Obama and "Walker has been described as McConnell's protégé."
Poor Steve, should have saved all that money.
You mean the “we build the wall” money?
The DOJ at this very moment is defying a Congressional subpoena.
Who thinks any of those people would ever see jail?
In fact, Navarro and Bannon are the only people I can even recall serving prison time for defying a Congressional subpoena.
Democrats in and out of the Administrative State ignore them at will. Just like they ignore FOIA requests or even the law and the constitution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/07/22/hollywood-ten-contempt-congress-bannon/
So, you had to reach back to the TRUMAN administration to find an example.
Meanwhile, Eric Holder and Merrick Garland are much more contemporaneous examples of defiers of Congress who were not prosecuted.
I don’t buy these long-standing lack of examples arguments.
The Trump era was extraordinary in tons of ways.
Which is not the argument. The argument is two AG's ignored a Congressional subpoena in recent memory, and nothing happened to them. Meanwhile, a former assistant to a former president did the same thing, and is not convicted and facing a jail term.
I am generally skeptical about selective prosecution claims, as usually there is some difference between the cases. Hard to argue that here.
Unlike the serving AGs, a former assistant to a former president is unlikely to have any credible executive privilege defense.
Anyone can see that.
It is a counterargument, Bored Lawyer, to your TRUMAN bit.
Your general thesis that every act of ignoring a Congressional subpoena is the same hardly needs counterargument.
Hard to argue that here
Really? Seems to me you’re being way more obtuse than someone with legal training should. Your lack of comparative details other than the bare act here is equivalent to asking why this murderer got the death penalty and these other manslaughter dudes didn’t.
Distinguishing facts I can see: the gravity of the underlying investigation, the relation of the principal to the item under investigation, the materiality of the information being sought, the political stunt factor, and the plausibility of executive privilige.
All seem easy elements in a decision to prosecute.
You claim to be generally skeptical, but you look like you're working hard to buy a partisan grievance.
It wasn't extraordinary in generating contempt of Congress referrals, though.
Only if you strip out all the facts.
You've got no argument here.
Look, I'm cool with Bannon going down, the problem is Holder, Garland, and so forth, endlessly, not going down with him. Congress desperately needs to revive inherent contempt.
I above, and a number of others just a few comments below, all provide plenty of factual distinguishing characteristics as to why this case is not the same as the others.
I'm not sure I like giving Congress the ability to throw people in jail given the performative impeachment bullshit it's been indulging in lately.
Can you explain what these extraordinary ways were and how they justify the first prison terms since Truman?
Sure. Bannon and Narravo asserted on their own that Presidential Executive Privilege automatically applied to them simply because of their association with the President, while also asserting there was no need to provide any evidence that the Executive had ever even hinted that he’d directed them to do that. (No such evidence, of course, exists.) No one else under Congressional subpoena has ever even attempted this defense.
Contrast that to the other two White House Trumpparatchiks—Dan Scavino and Mark Meadows—also referred by Congress to the DoJ for prosecution for Contempt of Congress. In a very generous interpretation of the law, DOJ said evidence exists that Trump had at least said publicly at different times that Executive Privilege should cover Meadows (Chief of Staff) and Scavino (Digital Communications Director) for the information subpoenaed.
Per Executive Department rules (and as happened with Eric Holder, for example), the President must formally invoke the instance of privilege, and the person must still respond to the subpoena, declining to answer question-by-question (or by document request as applicable).
Glad to help. Anything else I can answer for you?
I look forward to Democrats going to jail for defying Congressional subpoenas during the second Trump administration. I trust their trials will not take place in DC.
If under the same circumstances as Bannon and Narravo, sure, we all would. But if it's more like Scavino and Meadows, nope.
Why would you think otherwise?
eric holder's involvement in fast and furious was vastly worse the Bannon's activity.
I consider conspiring to commit sedition and thus break America’s constitutional republic by attempting to block the peaceful transfer of power after an adjudicated free and fair election, vastly worse than mismanagement of Fast & Furious, but that’s just opinion on both our parts.
To clarify my previous comment, however, after Richard Nixon left office, the Executive Department’s DoJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) developed rules around the Chief Executive’s invocation of Executive Privilege (updated many times since), and Congress in later legislation acknowledged the existence of executive privilege without defining it (44 U.S.C. § 2204(c)(2) (2007).
Per this legislation and long-existing OLC guidance, the President formally invokes any instance of privilege, and the subject must respond to the subpoena but may then (either question-by-question or by document request as applicable) follow the president’s direction to decline to answer.
This practice was followed in full by President Obama and AG Holder; at least in part by President Trump, Dan Scavino, and Mark Meadows; and not at all by Bannon and Narravo.
Holder was shielded by a presidential invocation of executive privilege. Bannon (and Navarro) were not.
And that is, I think, the point, though some posters will refuse to get it.
My point would be that I think that's properly irrelevant. We don't have a system of co-equal branches, we have a (decaying!) system of legislative supremacy. And part of that supremacy is the Congressional power to issue subpoenas and have them stick. Not have them be moot any time the administration in power finds them inconvenient.
We don’t have a system of co-equal branches, we have a (decaying!) system of legislative supremacy
First among equals, but not supreme.
Thanks for verifying that no one in my lifetime has been sent to prison for defying a Congressional subpoena.
Until now.
So if someone commits a crime that no one in your lifetime has previously committed, it's unjust to prosecute the recent offender?
Is that right? Because that's your argument, and I don't think it makes much sense.
We're not talking, though, about a crime nobody in his lifetime has previously committed. We're talking about one that is regularly committed and virtually never prosecuted.
We are. You are stripping out every fact but the offense so you can pretend it's all the same.
To be fair, you may now know the facts of each case beyond they're cutouts for you to claim a double standard.
Remember when the House Democrats demanded Trump's tax returns? The courts ruled that if there was a legitimate legislative purpose the IRS had to turn over private tax records. I would say that an interview of a POTUS being investigated for criminal behavior who escapes prosecution because is a dementia patient has all kinds of legitimate legislative purposes for Congress to subpoena video of the interview. If the GOP retains the House or captures the Senate they should cite that precedent when subpoenaing that interview.
I look forward to President Trump waiving Executive Privilege for former President Biden and then having all of the Biden relatives' tax returns being demanded by Congress and immediately published. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If not, then we will end up with a very unpleasant fallout.
This reminds me of a case where the defendant relied on professional advice and broke up his large bank transaction into smaller transactions of under $10,000 each. He was still guilty of structuring transactions to avoid reporting.
Dennis Hastert?
Who gave that advice, a professional plumber? Anybody who knows anything of contempt of Congress would have told him that only members of the party occupying the White House have immunity to it.
That said, I'm not clear what about this case reminds you of that. It's an absolutely unambiguous case of selective prosecution, not that THAT will help him any.
"selective prosecution"
One of the long line of Trump proxies being tried. Eventually they got bold enough to go after Trump.
Lawfare from a corrupt ruling party.
“Lawfare from a corrupt ruling party.“
You are a supporter of Pinochet.
The modern right is a movement filled with petty conmen and criminals and others with anti-social personality disorders. People like you and Bannon would be run of the mill thugs if you didn’t happen to have advanced degrees and weren’t too effete and cowardly to engage in direct violence.
Send them to camps, LTG?
Why would you think I would want to do that when I’m criticizing Bob and his this movement for a lack of morality? Me telling bad people they are in fact bad people is not a precursor to me wanting them in camps and extermination. It’s simply telling them a truth and a warning to others to not be fooled. That you think that means I want to send him to a concentration camp says way more about you than it does me. Maybe you should reflect on that.
The only person talking about sending people - er, "vermin" - to camps is Trump.
Doesn't seem to give you indigestion.
Well, XY. What do you think about sending people to camps?
However "effete and cowardly" you think "the modern right" is, don't you think that, after enough lawfare & election-stealing by you guys, even they will be ready "to engage in direct violence"?! I mean, you're aren't leaving them much choice...
By engaging in election stealing conspiracies, you’re creating a permission structure for yourself to engage in your darker anti-social and violent tendencies. It’s the most obvious thing ever.
Exactly.
Make up a story abut how you are being mistreated, and then use that to justify your own often violent mistreatment of others.
That is the right-wing game here.
You have no case here, Grinberg, and neither does Bob. You're just swallowing a lot of toxic crap, getting angry over nothing, and using that to justify possible future violence and criminality by you and your (putative) buddies.
Has anyone not named Yick Wo obtained final relief from a criminal charge or conviction based on a claim of selective prosecution? I can't think of anyone.
Did Steve Bannon even assert selective prosecution? Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(A)(iv) requires any such claim to be raised by a pretrial motion.
Do you want to comment on news breaking today re: selective prosecution for J6’ers?
Apparently the FBI arrested dozens of armed Antifa provocateurs on J5 and J6.
They all got handslaps and atta-boys. Unlike the grannies and grampa’s who are still rotting in Democrat gulags.
Armed Antifa agents, get practically nothing.
5 minutes on a guided tour? 2 years in the clinks and terroristic escalations. If you're a Trump supporter, of course.
Apparently? As in, “I found this story somewhere on the internet or maybe I pulled it out of my own ass” apparently
Well, at least we know it wasn’t your own ass you pulled this one out of. The Pizzagate-level hoax story that Jan 6 was really started by Antifa has been circulating for some time.
https://twitter.com/FreeStateWill/status/1782561621212119305
You can read the actual records for yourself.
>Well, at least we know it wasn’t your own ass you pulled this one out of. The Pizzagate-level hoax story that Jan 6 was really started by Antifa has been circulating for some time.
Am I claiming that, you liar?
F'n J's man, I swear.
So, "I found this story somewhere on the internet...” is the winner!
You link to a tweet from somebody called FreeStateWill of an undated meme titled Team Antifa, picturing three cosplayers in front of a Black Lives Matter flag, one wearing a BLM T-shirt (BLM ≠ antifa btw), one carrying a shotgun, in Detroit (that's the Renaissance Center in the background).
You then apparently turn that into "Apparently the FBI arrested dozens of armed Antifa provocateurs on J5 and J6. If you have cites for that, post the cites to verifiable sources, not a xitter thread.
F’n J’s man, I swear.
(I did a lot of Infosec consulting for Ross Perot's Electronic Data Systems in that building, decades ago when EDS was GM's primary IT provider. The view btw, is looking generally South past RenCen, into Canada.)
Are you serious? A posed and probably Photoshopped (bad job on the skin tones, BTW, and where did that "Team Antifa" caption come from?)) picture of some people dressed up as the RW image of Antifa is supposed to prove something other than what a fool you are?
These characters just randomly posed for this picture, wearing those outfits, which your intrepid agent got a hold of somehow?
Go crawl back in your hole.
Send them to camps, LTG?
Wow you like this one almost as much as “smasher”!!
I think we got it the first time
Don't forget (D)ifferent. Another of XY's nice substitutes for thinking.
Once again, XY, if you are so offended by sending people to camps why are you such a slavish Trump devotee?
Care to respond?
In fairness, Commenter_XY doesn't want to send Palestinians to camps. He wants to kill them before they can reach camps.
Page 2 shows bias, has unsubstantiated portions, contains misinformation, and is misleading via incomplete facts.
"On January 6, 2021, rioters attacked the United States
Capitol, seeking to interfere with the certification of the 2020
presidential election results. The attack delayed the scheduled
certification vote of the Joint Session of Congress. The attack
also left over 140 law enforcement officers injured and resulted
in several deaths."
Further on Page 2 is truthful, but does not mention said committee was formed contrary to House Rules, and thus had no authority to issue subpoenas with any weight.
"On June 30, 2021, the House of Representatives adopted
House Resolution 503, establishing the Select Committee to
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
Page 3
The Resolution charged the Select Committee to investigate
and report on the “facts, circumstances, and causes” of the
January 6th attack. H.R. Res. 503, 117th Cong. § 3 (2021). It
also authorized the Select Committee to subpoena witnesses to
provide testimony and documents, id. § 5(c)(4), and to propose
any legislation the Committee deemed necessary in light of its
investigation, id. § 4(a)(3)."
Because (a) the argument is meritless; and (b) it addresses anyway addresses it on pages 15-18.
McCarthy withdrew all his nominations and refused to propose any replacements. Was the committee supposed to disband in response?
You say the committee was "formed contrary to House Rules, and thus has not authority to issue subpoenas". What makes you say that?
Bannon and Navarro both made that argument — albeit belatedly — and the court squarely rejected it.
Was the committee supposed to disband in response?
That's the belief, apparently. Brett will be along to explain about norms shortly.
According to this idea there can never be a functioning investigative committee. All the minority has to do is nominate a couple of complete assholes, like "see-no-evil" Jordan and his pal, who will try to disrupt the whole thing.
If they get on, fine. Goal achieved. If not then the whole thing is "unauthorized" so the investigation is dead. Too bad for you Pelosi, being smarter than McCarthy and Jordan put together, didn't fall for it.
No, they were supposed to give up and let the Republicans have their choice of committee members, per 230 years of prior practice.
" All the minority has to do is nominate a couple of complete assholes, like “see-no-evil” Jordan and his pal, who will try to disrupt the whole thing."
Minority members on a committee have little ability to disrupt things. They do have the opportunity to ask embarrassing questions, though...
The Republicans did have their choice, Brett. There has plenty of acceptable nominees. And they fucked it up by trying to put complete jerks on the committee. Their fault, or McCarthy's.
Not a matter of tough questions - there were plenty of Republicans who could have been on the committee and would have done that. Do you really think Jordan was an irreplaceable interrogator?
You didn't need Jordan for that. He's none too bright anyway and is unlikely to ask anything intelligent. It's not a matter of questions. What he was going to do was not just leak information to the White House, but firehose it there. Sorry, Jim.
You know, the GOP needs to be following norms too, and if they want assholes on the committee who aren't going to do that then the Dems aren't obligated either.
Take your 230 years and cram it.
That's not what having your own choice means, Bernard. There isn't any norm of the minority only picking people the majority approves of.
And, yeah, 230 years of unbroken precedent. You can cram the legitimacy of that committee into the same hole.
Conflicting out is a pretty normal thing, actually. 'You have complete discretion in hiring' does not mean you can hire your son.
Similarly, hiring someone involved in J6 to investigate J6 is a no brainier nonstarter.
There is no norm that requires allowing open bad faith. Which is what this was; you don't even bother to deny it. Though you still somehow end up with some illegitimacy argument based not on substance but on a formalism that no one in good faith would continence.
This is a pattern with you. Same nonsense as your complaints about the 2020 election, and birtherism.
You don't want to sound crazy, but you really want to end up in the same places the crazy people do.
I keep pointing out that the majority has no say at all in who the minority picks, and you keep saying, in essence, that the majority had good reasons for not liking the minority's choice.
But that's not relevant, because, again, the majority has no say at all in who the minority picks. So what they think about those picks, why they think about it, is all irrelevant.
And this keeps being wrong. The resolution establishing the committee did not say, "Majority appoints 8 people and minority appoints 5 people." It said, "Speaker appoints 13 people, 5 of them after consulting with the minority."
Were there also "230 years of unbroken precedent" relating to a Speaker refusing to appoint members to a committee? Or for threatening the committee assignments of any members of his own party who accepted an invitation to serve on a committee?
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the Dems' issue wasn't that Jordan is an asshole. Pelosi accepted the very far right election denier Troy Nehls as a member. The issue was that Jordan might well be a subject of the committee's investigation.
Thanks, DMN.
All the worse for Brett's whining.
What is the norm for letting the subject of an investigation act as one of the investigators?
I guess Brett would have let Al Capone sit on his own jury.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the Democrats' reasons were utterly irrelevant. Because, They Don't Get To Pick The Minority Members.
That's what makes them the "minority" members, in case you didn't understand. That committed didn't have any minority members, they were ALL majority members.
Should McConnell have picked somebody else to begin with? Yeah, probably, but SO FREAKING WHAT? Once the Democrats presumed to exercise a veto over who he could pick, all possibility of compromise was over. There was nothing left but standing up for the principle that the majority doesn't have any say in who the minority picks.
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, and just did above, as this committee was established, the Speaker picks all members.
Wrong house; you mean McCarthy.
No Brett. Under the House Rules adopted by the previous (Republican-led) Congress, after consultation with the House Minority Leader, the Speaker nominates all (seven majority and five minority) Special Committee members for a vote before the full House.
Speaker Pelosi consulted with Minority Leader McCarthy, who put forward his five preferences. The Speaker agreed to three of them (and none were squishes) but declined two members who would have had a specific conflict of interest as at least sworn witnesses, and likely subjects of the investigation. She accepted the other three and asked Minority Leader McCarthy if he would like to replace the two.
Minority Leader McCarthy did not, so Speaker Pelosi nominated two Republicans for their slots. Minority Leader McCarthy then withdrew the other three from the committee.
So, in accordance with House rules, the House J6 Committee was composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans (she would have allowed five but only two Rs agreed) with the R's forfeiting their other three slots (yes, the two R's were Republicans, unlike the majority of the Houses Conference claiming that name).
So other than that point of ignorance, and forgetting Mitch McConnell is Senate, not House Majority Leader (you know, looks like ET's grandson, tends to freeze up at times), great comment.
Here's a great trivia question for 2030:
What did Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, John Eastman, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, Alan Weisselberg, and Donald Trump all have in common?
They were persecuted by the likes of Kevin Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
Makes sense.
there's a right way and a wrong way of challenging subpoenas. Denying subpoenas is the wrong way.