Bannon in Contempt

Via CNN: House holds Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt.

C-SPAN reports the vote was 229-202.

Now we will see what the DOJ does.

FILED UNDER: US Politics, , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. Gustopher says:

    C-SPAN reports the vote was 229-202

    By and large, Republicans believe subpoenas to be advisory, I guess.

  2. Stormy Dragon says:

    I feel like Congress should have used their inherent contempt authority instead of relying on the DOJ, which is effectively continuing the precedent that congress depends on the president’s assistance for its subpoenas to have any teeth.

  3. Kathy says:

    There needs to be a better means of getting people to comply with Congressional subpoenas for oversight purposes.

    As is, there’s a good chance Bannon and tiny trump might run out the clock and keep their malfeasance under darkness. They may only have to hold out until the next Congress sits.

  4. Scott F. says:

    Bannon in jail until January 2023 would at least be a start.

  5. Kathy says:

    @Scott F.:

    I don’t think the prosecution would advance that quickly. Most likely things won’t get to a court until after the 2022 midterms.

  6. Michael Reynolds says:

    Bannon’s thrilled – people are paying attention to him.

  7. reid says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Yeah. He should be selling used cars and annoying people in a dive bar nightly, but here we are.

  8. wr says:

    Headlines like this remind me of my favorite Mae West line (from She Done Him Wrong, I think):

    Judge: Madame, are you trying to express contempt for this court?

    West: No, your honor, I’m trying to conceal it.

  9. EddieInCA says:

    Doesn’t matter. Congress won’t do shite. DOJ won’t do shite. Heck, we’re still in litigation over Trump’s taxes, and that was five years ago.


    Get back to me when someone in that Administration is actually held accountable for anything.

  10. Mikey says:

    @EddieInCA: This. If Bannon serves even one minute behind bars, I’ll eat my own underpants.

  11. Anonne says:

    I only have two words: Susan McDougal.

    Actually, I’ll add two more: Republican hypocrites, but I repeat myself.

  12. James Joyner says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    I feel like Congress should have used their inherent contempt authority instead of relying on the DOJ

    It hasn’t been used since the 1930s but there are quite a few SCOTUS rulings establishing this as an implied power. It’s odd that Congress has stopped using it, especially given that DOJ essentially never sees fit to call a grand jury and the cumbersomeness of the civil processes.

  13. dazedandconfused says:

    There may be problems with using the Sergeant At Arms as real police, starting with not having the right kind of staff, one with the jurisdiction and personnel to go anywhere in the nation and conduct hostile arrests. Currently the office depends on Capitol Police, and they most likely can’t work outside the capitol alone. All Bannon would have to do is hang out in a place like Alabama where the local cops won’t do anything unless ordered by the Gov and with an arrest warrant issued by a judge…and there we are, right back in the Judicial Branch’s lap.

    There is something else to consider in equipping the SAA to jail people. What someone like McCarthy might do with that power, at the behest of committees chaired by people like Greene and Gohmert. Does anyone want those people with the ability to simply order people thrown in jail without Judicial oversight? Technically that power exists, but IMO the office of the SAA has been deliberately kept weak to avoid that precedent from becoming established.

    Perhaps it will come down to that, but it’s understandable the Speaker seeks to exhaust the option of using Justice first. Might be the right call, if Justice will not abide the attempts to stall, it will be.

  14. liberal capitalist says:

    Poor guy… He has no choice really.

    On the one hand, there is no question that through video and audio recordings as well as writings by him on various social media sites that he was active in inciting insurrection on Jan 6th. So speaking would be self incriminating. And likely damning to Trump.

    On the other had, even if he wanted to speak out, he knows that he cannot due to Trump’s insistence that all his aids not speak under Trumps idea of expanded post-presidential immunity.

    He will just have to spend his time fundraising from the loyal Trumpanzees while he awaits… likely nothing happening.

    I am extremely pessimistic for 2024.