Bannon Case Tests Speaker Johnson’s Loyalty to the Constitution

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Recently, Congressman Thomas Massie suggested that the House of Representatives should retroactively withdraw the subpoena against Steve Bannon.  This would nullify Bannon’s D.C. jury conviction for “contempt of Congress” and offer Bannon’s lawyers a chance to vacate Bannon’s prison sentence.

Massie is right, and here’s why.

Political prosecutions have become the Democrats’ first-line mode of attack in recent years, posing a multifront threat to the Constitution.  These show trials undermine the First Amendment by targeting conservatives whose public speech opposes the left’s radical views.  They also attack the constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.  Figures like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, and others were prosecuted primarily for their association with Trump.

Moreover, the Democrats’ prosecution of Trump’s legal counsel — such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Ray Smith, and John Eastman — aims to destroy the attorney-client privilege, which is rooted in the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.  This privilege ensures that private conversations with lawyers remain protected.

Selective prosecution is another issue.

Remember Big Jim Comey’s infamous statement in defense of Hillary, that  “no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute,” despite the fact that she illegally had classified information on her personal computer?

Remember the treasure trove of classified documents in Joe Biden’s basement, after he was vice president?  Yet Democrats prosecute Trump, even though Trump has legal access to those documents under the Presidential Records Act (PRA), when Biden, a former V.P. at the time, and Hilary broke the law by possessing classified documents, and did not have protection for possessing and viewing the documents under the PRA.

Selective prosecution occurs when the Executive Branch prosecutes conservatives primarily for their political beliefs while letting others go, particularly Democrats, who go unpunished.  In the current landscape, Republicans are prosecuted, whereas Democrats are not.  Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for having classified information on her personal computer, and Joe Biden was not prosecuted for classified documents in his basement.  Yet Trump is prosecuted despite having legal access to his presidential documents, even classified documents, under the Presidential Records Act.

Trump’s lawyers in Florida have appropriately filed a motion to dismiss based on selective prosecution, which should be granted.  This is also a fatal flaw in the DOJ’s “contempt” prosecution against Bannon (and Peter Navarro).  Selective prosecution violates Americans’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

If there’s a case screaming “selective prosecution,” it’s the “contempt of Congress” cases against Bannon and Navarro.  Before Bannon, no prosecution for “contempt of Congress” had occurred in over sixty years.  The last such prosecution before Bannon occurred in 1961.

Meanwhile, numerous Democrats, like Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, and Kathleen Sebelius, defied congressional subpoenas but were not prosecuted.

In Bannon’s case, to make his prosecution even more egregious, the Democrat DOJ pressed forward with its “contempt” prosecution even after Bannon, with the consent of President Trump, withdrew his objection based on executive subpoena and offered to testify.

Bannon’s offer wasn’t good enough.  So Bannon was going to testify, but that wasn’t good enough.  For Garland’s corrupt DOJ, the order of the day was to prosecute Bannon, come hell or high water.

Bannon’s real “crime” is his powerful, influential voice and command of American history.  He galvanized conservatives around issues like border security, the need to wage war against the Deep State, and exposing the real threat to national security (Communist China).  Bannon advocates America-First policies, contradicting the religious tenets of globalist, Deep State orthodoxy.

His widespread reach and his clear, forceful rhetoric make him a threat to the elite class, which doesn’t like his views or his association with Trump.

Next to Trump himself, and following the death of Rush Limbaugh, Bannon stands alone as the second most powerful advocate in the world for MAGA.

If the MAGA/America First movement had a Mount Rushmore, Trump would be its cornerstone, its George Washington, prominent and larger than all others.  But Steve Bannon and Rush Limbaugh would make the monument, in the second and third spots, with the final two being subject to debate.

This is why they prosecuted him for “contempt of Congress,” to remove his powerful pro-Trump, pro-MAGA voice headed into the 2024 presidential election.

This brings us to Republican speaker Mike Johnson.  To many conservatives, Johnson has been a mixed bag at best.  Although he has sometimes has talked tough, his actions have often fallen short of his lofty rhetoric.  For example, in the fall of 2023, Johnson insisted that Ukraine aid would be contingent on border security, but later, in April of 2024, he led the House in passing a $95-billion military aid package for Ukraine without addressing border security.  He also pushed for extending Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act, expanding warrantless surveillance of Americans, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Johnson has presented no plan for addressing the national debt and has funded the government with an unaccountable continuing resolution, keeping Garland’s corrupt DOJ in business.  This has frustrated many Republicans, who feel that their leaders talk a good game but fail to take meaningful action against the Democrats.

In the Bannon case, the issue is about preserving and protecting the Constitution by imposing checks and balances against an out-of-control Executive Branch that has turned the once-respected DOJ into a politically weaponized death star.

Johnson can change that do-nothing perception, at least to a degree, and take a stand to defend the Constitution in the process, if he is willing.

The Republican majority in the House has the authority to retroactively withdraw both the subpoenas Bannon and Navarro are accused of defying and the underlying findings of contempt.  This would allow Bannon’s attorneys to argue that the case is now moot and that Bannon’s looming prison sentence should be vacated.  Navarro could be immediately released.

With a July 1 report-to-prison order looming, Speaker Johnson must act quickly.  If he doesn’t think he has the votes, he should rally support.

It was nice to see Johnson support Trump in New York against the prosecution by Alvin Bragg, but that was largely symbolic.  The real test is whether Johnson will use his power as speaker to end the unconstitutional prosecutions against Bannon and Navarro.

Is Johnson, like so many hapless Republican speakers of the past, all bark and no bite?  Or will he actually use the Bannon case to strike back against tyranny?

We’re about to see what kind of stuff Johnson is made of.

Don Brown, a former U.S. Navy JAG officer, is the author of the book Travesty of Justice: The Shocking Prosecution of Lieutenant Clint Lorance, The Last Fighter Pilot: The True Story of the Final Combat Mission of World War II, and CALL SIGN EXTORTION 17: The Shootdown of SEAL Team Six, and the author of 15 books on the United States military, including three national bestsellers.  He is one of four former JAG officers serving on the Lorance legal team.  Lorance was pardoned by President Trump in November 2019.  Brown is also a former military prosecutor and a former special assistant United States attorney.  He can be reached at donbrownbooks@gmail.com and on Twitter at @donbrown.

Image: Steve Bannon.  Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.