Menu

Topics

Connect

Comments

Comments closed.

Due to the sensitive and/or legal subject matter of some of the content on globalnews.ca, we reserve the ability to disable comments from time to time.

Please see our Commenting Policy for more.

Steve Bannon: U.S. proposes 6-month sentence for former Trump adviser

Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon arrived in court in New York on Thursday to face fresh charges related to a charity that was supposed to use private funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall. The charges relate to a federal case from 2020, in which Bannon was indicted for his role and what prosecutors then said was an effort to personally benefit from a charity that was going to privately build the southern border wall – Sep 8, 2022

The U.S. Justice Department on Monday asked a federal judge to sentence former President Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon to six months behind bars, saying he pursued a “bad faith strategy defiance and contempt” against the congressional committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Story continues below advertisement

Bannon, an influential far-right political figure, was convicted in July on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

Each count is punishable by between 30 days to one year in prison and a fine ranging between US$100 to US$100,000.

He is due to be sentenced before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols on Friday morning.

Prosecutors told Nichols in their sentencing recommendation on Monday that Bannon’s actions, including his refusal to this day to produce “a single document” to the congressional committee, led them to recommend a prison sentence at the top of the guidelines range.

They also urged the judge to impose the maximum fine of US$200,000, which they said they based on Bannon’s “insistence on paying the maximum fine rather than cooperate with the Probation Office’s routine pre-sentencing financial investigation.”

Story continues below advertisement

“Throughout the pendency of this case, the Defendant has exploited his notoriety — through courthouse press conferences and his War Room podcast — to display to the public the source of his bad-faith refusal to comply with the committee’s subpoena: a total disregard for government processes and the law,” prosecutors wrote in their filing.

“The defendant’s statements prove that his contempt was not aimed at protecting executive privilege or the Constitution, rather it was aimed at undermining the committee’s efforts to investigate an historic attack on government.”

Advertisement

You are viewing an Accelerated Mobile Webpage.

View Original Article