The New York Budgets

Tag: Steve Bannon

  • Justice Department Seeks Dismissal of Steve Bannon Jan. 6 Contempt Case

    Justice Department Seeks Dismissal of Steve Bannon Jan. 6 Contempt Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bold move that underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to rectifying what many conservatives view as the weaponized excesses of the previous Biden-era Justice Department, federal prosecutors have formally requested the dismissal of Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol events. This development, filed on Monday, represents a significant victory for Bannon, the fiery conservative strategist and former White House chief advisor, who has long maintained that his prosecution was a politically motivated witch hunt designed to silence dissent against the establishment.

    The request, led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro—a no-nonsense prosecutor known for her tough stance on crime and her appearances on Fox News—cites prosecutorial discretion and argues that dropping the charges is “in the interests of justice.” Pirro’s filing, submitted to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who originally oversaw the case, emphasizes that Bannon does not oppose the motion and requests dismissal with prejudice, ensuring the charges cannot be refiled. This comes as a welcome reprieve for Bannon, who endured four months in federal prison in 2024, a sentence many on the right have decried as unjust and emblematic of selective prosecution.

    Bannon’s ordeal began in 2021 when the Democrat-led House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot subpoenaed him for testimony and documents. As a vocal supporter of President Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results—efforts rooted in widespread concerns over voting irregularities—Bannon had publicly predicted turmoil on his “War Room” podcast, stating on January 5, 2021, that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The committee targeted him for his insights into the so-called “Green Bay Sweep,” a strategic plan discussed among Trump allies to contest electoral votes from key swing states amid allegations of fraud.

    🏛️ More Politics

    Refusing to comply, Bannon invoked executive privilege, a doctrine protecting presidential communications, despite having left the White House in 2017. Critics on the left painted this as defiance, but conservatives argue it was a legitimate legal stance, especially given Bannon’s advisory role to Trump. The House, under Democratic control, voted to hold him in contempt, and the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland swiftly indicted him on two counts. Bannon’s defense team later offered to testify after Trump waived privilege, but it was too late; a D.C. jury convicted him in 2022, and he was sentenced to prison time.

    Throughout his appeals, Bannon has steadfastly claimed he did not willfully defy the subpoena but was following his lawyers’ advice to resolve privilege issues first. An appellate court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to halt his sentence. Yet, Bannon’s resilience shone through—he continued broadcasting his podcast from behind bars and emerged in October 2024 as a martyr figure in conservative circles, railing against what he calls the “deep state” and the “unselect committee” that pursued him.

    The Trump administration’s return to power in 2025 has brought swift changes to the DOJ, including the appointment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, both of whom have prioritized dismantling what they describe as politically tainted prosecutions. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Blanche declared, “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” He specifically hailed the Bannon filing as a step to vacate the conviction arising from the “J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena.”

    Most Read in Politics

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed this in a separate Supreme Court filing, urging the justices to remand the case back to Judge Nichols for dismissal. Sauer noted that even post-conviction, prosecutors retain the authority to drop charges if justice demands it—a principle that aligns with conservative values of fairness and limited government overreach.

    This isn’t an isolated incident. The administration has already pardoned over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with January 6, framing the event not as an “insurrection” but as a passionate protest against a stolen election. Similar leniency was extended to Peter Navarro, another Trump advisor convicted for defying the same committee; the DOJ announced last year it would no longer defend his conviction, with his appeal ongoing.

    The move has drawn predictable outrage from liberal quarters, who accuse the Trump DOJ of cronyism and undermining congressional authority. But for conservatives, it’s a long-overdue correction. Bannon, ever the provocateur, has positioned himself as a frontline warrior against elite corruption, and this dismissal bolsters his narrative. As one of the architects of Trump’s 2016 victory and a key voice in the MAGA movement, Bannon’s exoneration could energize the base ahead of future political battles.

    🏛️ More Politics

    Comparisons have been drawn to other contempt cases, such as the recent House Oversight Committee vote to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify in a Jeffrey Epstein probe. The Clintons eventually “caved,” as Republican Rep. James Comer put it, agreeing to depositions just before a full House vote. Conservatives point to this as evidence of double standards: why were the Clintons spared prosecution while Bannon was jailed?

    Legal experts on the right argue that the January 6 committee itself was flawed—lacking bipartisan balance and operating with a partisan agenda. “This dismissal acknowledges that the subpoena was improper from the start,” said a source close to Bannon’s legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Steve has always been about fighting for the forgotten man, and this vindicates his stand against overreach.”

    As the nation grapples with ongoing debates over election integrity and government accountability, Bannon’s case highlights the deep divides in American politics. With Trump back in the Oval Office, expect more such reversals as the administration seeks to heal what it sees as wounds inflicted by a vindictive opposition.

    Bannon did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but his supporters are already celebrating online, viewing this as a triumph over “lawfare.”

    Exclusive articles

  • Kash Patel on Defensive as FBI Director Faces Intensifying Pressure

    Kash Patel on Defensive as FBI Director Faces Intensifying Pressure

    WASHINGTON – FBI Director Kash Patel is bracing for a grilling from both sides of the aisle as he prepares to testify before Congress on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, amid swirling controversies over his handling of the investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a wave of internal firings that have plunged the bureau into turmoil.

    Patel, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump confirmed in February 2025 in a razor-thin, party-line Senate vote, returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since his January confirmation hearing. There, he pledged to Democrats that he would steer clear of retribution against perceived political enemies within the FBI. Now, with the bureau reeling from high-profile missteps and lawsuits alleging a “campaign of retribution,” Patel faces skeptical lawmakers eager to probe whether he’s lived up to those assurances.

    The hearing, which will also include an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee later in the week, comes just days after the FBI’s response to Kirk’s killing on a Utah college campus last week drew sharp bipartisan criticism. Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who authorities say had increasingly embraced a “leftist ideology” and become more politically radicalized in recent years. Robinson turned himself in late Saturday night, September 13, after acquaintances tipped off law enforcement, but not before Patel’s public handling of the case ignited a firestorm.

    Patel drew immediate backlash for a social media post hours after the shooting, announcing that “the subject” was in custody—a claim he walked back less than two hours later, stating the individual had been released following an interview. The swift reversal fueled accusations of incompetence, with conservative commentator Chris Rufo questioning Patel’s “operational expertise” in a Friday morning post on X (formerly Twitter). “He performed terribly in the last few days, and it’s not clear whether he has the operational expertise to investigate, infiltrate, and disrupt the violent movements—of whatever ideology—that threaten the peace in the United States,” Rufo wrote.

    Steve Bannon, another prominent Trump supporter, piled on, noting that those close to Robinson had turned him in, calling the arrest “not great law enforcement work.” Even President Trump, while defending Patel in a Saturday interview with Fox News Channel’s Maria Bartiromo, acknowledged the scrutiny: “Kash and the FBI have done a great job,” Trump said, but the praise rang hollow amid the GOP infighting.

    FBI Director Kash Patel testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Commitee in Washington, D.C., on Sept.16, 2025. © Josh Morgan, USA TODAY

    Undeterred, Patel pushed back aggressively on Monday morning during an appearance on Fox & Friends. Defending his transparency pledge—a cornerstone of his vow to dismantle the “deep state” bureaucracy he inherited—Patel dismissed the criticism as partisan noise. “I was being transparent with working with the public on our findings as I had them,” he said. “I stated in that message that we had a subject and that we were going to interview him, and we did, and he was released. Could I have worded it a little better in the heat of the moment, sure, but do I regret putting it out? Absolutely not.”

    He added: “I challenge anyone out there to find a director that has been more transparent.” Patel also highlighted his decision to release photographs of Robinson while he was at large, crediting it with facilitating the eventual arrest. The FBI rarely comments publicly on ongoing probes, making Patel’s approach a deliberate departure from precedent.

    The Kirk investigation isn’t the only flashpoint. Democrats, led by Senate Judiciary Committee members like Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), have teed up questions about broader politicization of the bureau. Schiff posted a video on X last week previewing his line of inquiry, compiling past Patel statements critical of the “deep state.” Patel fired back swiftly: “Let’s find out who law enforcement backs… and who supports defunding the police—answer coming tomorrow, but we already know.”

    On the left, concerns center on a recent FBI review of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, which culminated in a memo deeming further releases unnecessary despite earlier promises. House Judiciary ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) fired off a letter to Patel last week demanding details: “Obvious questions abound: why were so many agents tasked with reviewing documents that were never released? What specific instructions were they given during the review? What information did these agents uncover that led DOJ and FBI to reverse their promise to release the files, and how are these decisions related to the President?”

    Raskin specifically asked when Patel became aware of references to Trump in the files and for a breakdown of resources devoted to the review. The Epstein matter has faded somewhat amid the Kirk fallout, but it’s expected to resurface as evidence of alleged favoritism.

    Compounding the pressure is a federal lawsuit filed last week by three top FBI officials ousted in August, including former acting director Brian Driscoll. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses Patel of orchestrating the firings as part of a White House-directed purge targeting those seen as disloyal. Driscoll, who clashed with Trump administration officials early in the president’s second term, and two other high-ranking agents allege the removals were illegal and retaliatory.

    The suit details a conversation between Patel and Emil Bove, then a senior Justice Department official, in which Patel reportedly admitted the firings were non-negotiable to safeguard his position. “Patel explained that he had to fire the people his superiors told him to fire, because his ability to keep his own job depended on the removal of the agents who worked on cases involving the President,” the complaint states. It further claims Patel referenced the FBI’s past investigations into Trump, saying, “the FBI tried to put the President in jail and he hasn’t forgotten it.” Driscoll believed “superiors” meant the Justice Department and White House, a claim Patel did not refute in the recounted exchange.

    White House aide Stephen Miller is named in the suit, with allegations that he demanded “summary firings” via Bove. The firings have decimated FBI leadership: Since Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, the administration has axed all top career officials overseeing key branches, multiple special agents in charge of field offices, and counterterrorism expert Mehtab Syed, who was set to lead the Salt Lake Field Office in February. Current and former officials say the upheaval has sapped morale and hampered operations at a time of rising political violence.

    Democrats argue these moves echo Patel’s confirmation hearing promises gone awry, while Republicans on the committee—holding the majority—plan to rally around him. They expect to laud his emphasis on combating violent crime and illegal immigration, and press for updates on the Kirk probe, including Robinson’s motives tied to leftist extremism.

    Patel’s tenure, now eight months old, has been marked by vows to root out institutional bias. A vocal critic of the multiple probes into Trump during his first term, Patel has redirected resources toward reexamining the 2016 Russia investigation into potential Trump campaign coordination. Agents and prosecutors are reportedly seeking interviews on those long-dormant threads, which Patel frames as correcting past weaponization of the FBI and DOJ.

    As the hearing looms, Patel shows no signs of backing down. His combative style—evident in his X clapback at Schiff and on-air defenses—suggests Tuesday’s testimony will be as much a battle as an oversight session. For a director who campaigned on transparency and reform, the spotlight could either solidify his reformist image or expose fractures in his leadership of America’s premier law enforcement agency.