Partisan Judge Sentences Steve Bannon to Four Months in Jail for Refusing to Comply With Congressional Subpoena

How many months in jail did Eric Holder get, again, for refusing to comply with Congressional subpeonas? Zero, right?

Disclose.tv @disclosetv

JUST IN - DC judge sentences Steve Bannon to 4 months in prison and $6,500 in fines for contempt of Congress.

Sean Davis @seanmdav

FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence against the president and his campaign in order to get an illegal spy warrant.

Despite being convicted of a felony, he didn’t spend a single day in prison, and his law law license was restored.

Bannon didn't talk to Congress.

They also brought this case to trial and sentencing very quickly, didn't they? You wouldn't want to risk Republicans winning Congress and withdrawing the subpoena.

I can only repeat: First order of business in 2024: Pass a law allowing defendants and prosecutors to move to relocate any legal action involving a political actor to a politically neutral jurisdiction. No more Home Court Advantage for leftwing Democrats.

The minimum sentence would have been sixty days for Steve Bannon. The lawless criminal organization the DOJ sought six months. The judge decided to split the difference instead of asking, "Say, why is this the first prosecution of a political actor for contempt of Congress? Why was Eric Holder never tried?"

Meanwhile, the disgraced FBI agent Tim Thibault, who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was "Russian disinformation" to get Joe Biden elected, is refusing to cooperate with GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee.

When he refuses a subpoena next year, will he be going to jail, do you think?
Or nah?

Disgraced former FBI agent Timothy Thibault is refusing to cooperate with GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee as part of their planned probe into the FBI's conduct surrounding Hunter Biden, The Post has learned.

The stonewall could set up showdown should Republicans retake the House next year.

In an Oct. 7 letter from his attorney, Thibault said, "Concerning the request for an interview, because the subject matter pertains to sensitive law enforcement information and/or pending investigations, our client is not in a position to accept this invitation at this juncture."

Thibault also said that he would not comply with an earlier letter sent by Republican committee members demanding he preserve documents from his days with the FBI.

"Our client is now retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ... As such, he no longer possesses an FBI laptop or mobile device, and he no longer has access to the FBI's records and materials," the letter said.

Thibault is facing scrutiny from Republicans for his role in allegedly suppressing the FBI's Hunter Biden investigation before the election.

"Thibualt can refuse to cooperate now, but can't hide from a Congressional subpoena in the future," said a person close to committee Republicans.

Oh yeah? Think the corrupt DOJ believes in equal justice?

Post columnist Miranda Devine reported wrote last month that Thibault had been assigned as the agency "point man" to manage Hunter Biden's business partner Tony Bobulinski -- whose revelations about the first son's shady dealings went ignored by the agency.

In October 2020, Thibault ordered that a probe into Hunter Biden's alleged "criminal financial and related activity" be closed, an agency whistleblower told Sen. Chuck Grassley in July.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said the allegations against Thibault were "deeply troubling." The agent resigned from the FBI in August.

By the way, an Obama-era official is demanding that Durham keep his report on FBI malfeasance secret, and that Merrick Garland refuse to release it, because it could... harm the FBI's reputation.

Note he demanded that Mueller make his report public.

But that's (D)ifferent, you see.

Special counsel John Durham should not have the final say in his investigation seeking out misconduct in the FBI's Russia inquiry, says an Obama-era spokesman for the Justice Department.

Matthew Miller, who was director of the Justice Department's public affairs office from 2009 to 2011, argued Attorney General Merrick Garland, or another top official at the agency, should review the final report Durham is reportedly expected to prepare by the end of the year before making a decision on releasing its findings to the public.

The challenge to Garland to take a "pause" followed a jury in Alexandria, Virginia, finding Russian national Igor Danchenko not guilty Tuesday on several false statements charges over allegations that the main source of British ex-spy Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about his sourcing for the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier. MSNBC host Alex Wagner asked Miller whether Durham's endeavor is coming to an end.

"His cases are over. I think it's clear that he's not going to bring any more charges in this investigation, but one of the requirements for special counsels under the regulations is that they write a confidential report and submit it to the attorney general, and the attorney general then makes a decision whether to release that report to the public," Miller said on Alex Wagner Tonight.

Miller made a comparison to special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and then-Attorney General William Barr's controversial rollout of his report in 2019.

"I think Merrick Garland will be under a lot of pressure from Republicans to release that report, but I have to say, this circumstance is very different from the Mueller investigation, where, obviously, the attorney general, Bill Barr, did release that report," he said.

"It's different because in that case, the subject of that investigation could not be charged, and so it was appropriate for the department to make its findings public, so Congress could decide whether to impeach and convict the then-sitting president," Miller added. "That is not the case here, so to release a report in this instance -- given what we know about the way that Durham has behaved, some of his inappropriate public statements during this investigation, the poor judgments he has made in bringing these charges -- to release a report publicly and let him have the final word I think probably unfairly tarnish some people at the FBI that we know he holds ill will to based on some of the things he said in this most recent trial."

(D)ifferent!

posted by Ace at 12:00 PM

| Access Comments