Steve Bannon Is no Mae West

 

Talk about stating the obvious! Such a title. No one has taken the bait, so this old fool will rush in where wiser individuals know better than to tread. Everyone, I assume, remembers the old Mae West joke, that the trials and travails of Steve Bannon bring to mind:

Mae West was hauled into court on obscenity charges.

Her entourage went to court with her. In the courtroom, her entourage was more or less having a party.

The judge was offended. He repeatedly pounded his gavel, shouting “ORDER IN THE COURT!”

When the noise died down enough for the judge to be heard, he asked Mae West pointedly: “Miss West, are you trying to show contempt for this court?”

Mae West batted her eyelashes and replied sweetly: “Oh, no, your honor. I’m doing my best to conceal it!”

Steve Bannon should wear that contempt conviction proudly. Why appeal?  Does he want to be found not in contempt of Congress? Shameful! It would be worth the jail time and the fine to have that conviction for contempt of Congress for the rest of his life. A red badge of courage, if you will. His bona fides would be bulletproof.  He should ask for a draconian sentence. In prison, he can entertain conservatives of all stripes who come to pay homage to his courage in his conviction (bad pun intended) and the double standard of justice (why is Eric Holder walking around free trying to rig elections and define districts, etc.) that is at play. Activists can demonstrate with signs, FREE THE BANNON!

He almost spoiled that conviction with his mealy-mouthed and variable defenses:  That he wasn’t really trying to avoid the Congressional subpoena; that he just misunderstood the time frame; that he really didn’t intend to show contempt of Congress; that he thought he did actually qualify for executive privilege, though none had been invoked. Etc. etc. How maudlin.

Come on, Steve! Play it straight. Of course, you intended to show contempt of Congress. Bravo!  We would be appalled to find out that you didn’t really mean to show contempt of Congress. There is hardly an institution in our nation that deserves contempt more than Congress. Go join all those January Sixers rotting in DC prison. Show solidarity. Focus the media spotlight on their plight. You began to redeem yourself with your tirade after the conviction. Keep it up. Shout the illegitimacy of the Dreyfus affair, er, I mean, the Jan. 6 committee. Don’t make Mollie Hemingway do all the heavy lifting (although she seems more than able to take down the committee all by herself).

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 60 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    I guess it’s okay, since it’s a misdemeanor not a felony (that would impact gun rights, etc).

    • #1
  2. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution.  I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    • #2
  3. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department.  The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro..  Steve Bannon was the first of the two to go to trial.  He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Bannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Bannon brought this on himself.  He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

    • #3
  4. Rudert, Bro/Brah/Broski Inactive
    Rudert, Bro/Brah/Broski
    @JasonRudert

    Mae West wasn’t a werewolf, though

    • #4
  5. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Nanocelt TheContrarian: Why appeal?

    It takes constant work to re-affirm the Constitution.  In this case, appealing helps uphold the separation of powers.

    • #5
  6. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

     

    Reagan would be so proud. 

    • #6
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

    In your zeal to go on another bitter rant about the last Administration, you appear to have no idea what other “non-prosecutions” I’m referring to.  Study up.

    • #7
  8. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I guess it’s okay, since it’s a misdemeanor not a felony (that would impact gun rights, etc).

    He’d still have a criminal record though, wouldn’t he?  That would affect his ability to travel internationally, no?

    • #8
  9. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):
    Reagan would be so proud. 

    Indeed, because if there is one thing Reagan stood for, it was politically motivated prosecutions.

    And certainly The Gipper would have been appalled if any of his administration had brazenly defied Congress. (Cough… Iran-Contra … Cough).

    • #9
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I guess it’s okay, since it’s a misdemeanor not a felony (that would impact gun rights, etc).

    He’d still have a criminal record though, wouldn’t he? That would affect his ability to travel internationally, no?

    Maybe not for a misdemeanor?

    • #10
  11. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

     

    So much hate from such a cordial, polite man. Hmmm…

    • #11
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Isn’t there a meme for this? Something along the lines of “Contempt of Congress: I accept your terms.”

    • #12
  13. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump.  If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?  

    • #13
  14. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly.  But show up. 

    If I get a jury summons, I show up.  If I get a subpoena, I show up.  

    • #14
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But if you get asked a question on Ricochet, your chance of showing up is not so high. 

    • #15
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    If you think the issuing party is bogus and the subpoena invalid, you don’t show up, and you take it to a higher court.  Seems likely that if you acquiesce, it’s probably considered moot.

    • #16
  17. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But you, the dutiful citizen have already deemed the defendants guilty, and deserving of the maximum sentences and wish for the legal system to harass them until they die.

    You don’t deserve to serve on a jury, you lack fundamental understanding of the basis of our legal system. It’s quite remarkable to read your rants holding the knowledge that you had legal training in the US, and actually have a license to practice. 

    • #17
  18. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

    How can anyone take your comments seriously when you don’t even know the man’s name?

    • #18
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But you, the dutiful citizen have already deemed the defendants guilty, and deserving of the maximum sentences and wish for the legal system to harass them until they die.

    You don’t deserve to serve on a jury, you lack fundamental understanding of the basis of our legal system. It’s quite remarkable to read your rants holding the knowledge that you had legal training in the US, and actually have a license to practice.

    But remember, [standard comment the mods told me to stop using].

    • #19
  20. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Isn’t there a meme for this? Something along the lines of “Contempt of Congress: I accept your terms.”

    He should get the exact same punishment for this charge that Eric Holder and Lois Lerner did!

    • #20
  21. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

     

    Who is Steve Brannon?

    • #21
  22. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

     

    Who’s Steve Brannon?

    • #22
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But you, the dutiful citizen have already deemed the defendants guilty, and deserving of the maximum sentences and wish for the legal system to harass them until they die.

    You don’t deserve to serve on a jury, you lack fundamental understanding of the basis of our legal system. It’s quite remarkable to read your rants holding the knowledge that you had legal training in the US, and actually have a license to practice.

    But remember, [standard comment the mods told me to stop using].

    What.  You mean that he’s just a family lawyer?

    • #23
  24. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But you, the dutiful citizen have already deemed the defendants guilty, and deserving of the maximum sentences and wish for the legal system to harass them until they die.

    You don’t deserve to serve on a jury, you lack fundamental understanding of the basis of our legal system. It’s quite remarkable to read your rants holding the knowledge that you had legal training in the US, and actually have a license to practice.

    But remember, [standard comment the mods told me to stop using].

    What. You mean that he’s just a family lawyer?

    Didn’t Coppola do some movies that included some of those.

    • #24
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    If I get a jury summons, I show up. If I get a subpoena, I show up.

    But you, the dutiful citizen have already deemed the defendants guilty, and deserving of the maximum sentences and wish for the legal system to harass them until they die.

    You don’t deserve to serve on a jury, you lack fundamental understanding of the basis of our legal system. It’s quite remarkable to read your rants holding the knowledge that you had legal training in the US, and actually have a license to practice.

    But remember, [standard comment the mods told me to stop using].

    What. You mean that he’s just a family lawyer?

     

    • #25
  26. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    On what basis is it a crime to decline to show up for a kangaroo court of pure partisan purpose that is set up for the sole purpose of ex post facto fi di g o e person guilty of a manufactured “crime”?

    • #26
  27. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    One of his grounds for appeal is selective prosecution. I’d like to see him push that if only to call more attention to . . . selective prosecution.

    No.

    The House referred the four people who refused to testify to the Justice Department. The Justice Department decided to prosecute two of them, Steve Brannon and Peter Navarro.. Steve Brannon was the first of the two to go to trial. He was convicted.

    I am looking forward to Peter Navarro being prosecuted and hopeful convicted.

    I hope that the Justice Department changes it’s mind and decides to prosecute the other two, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino.

    I hope that Steve Brannon receives the maximum sentence, and that immediately after he is released, that he be subpoenaed again, and if he doesn’t appear, be found in contempt, and prosecuted again.

    Steve Brannon brought this on himself. He could have done what Mike Flynn did, and take the Fifth Amendment to every posed question.

    How can anyone take your comments seriously when you don’t even know the man’s name?

    Thanks.

    • #27
  28. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    On what basis is it a crime to decline to show up for a kangaroo court of pure partisan purpose that is set up for the sole purpose of ex post facto fi di g o e person guilty of a manufactured “crime”?

    On the crime of not belonging to the ruling party.

    Same reason some people get hardcore prison sentences for trespassing, while other people burn and loot with complete impunity. Heck, if you have the correct partisan ideology, you can throw a Molotov cocktail into a cop car and the “Department of Justice” will argue for a light sentence on your behalf.

    • #28
  29. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Put yourself in his shoes – he was just a campaign strategist for Trump. If you don’t see yourself as guilty of something you’re being accused of, especially on that level, why say ok – guilty?

    So show up and plead the fifth amendment repeatedly. But show up.

    But that would erode the constitutional separation of powers. 

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    On what basis is it a crime to decline to show up for a kangaroo court of pure partisan purpose that is set up for the sole purpose of ex post facto fi di g o e person guilty of a manufactured “crime”?

    On the crime of not belonging to the ruling party.

    Same reason some people get hardcore prison sentences for trespassing, while other people burn and loot with complete impunity. Heck, if you have the correct partisan ideology, you can throw a Molotov cocktail into a cop car and the “Department of Justice” will argue for a light sentence on your behalf.

    Gary is OK with that based on what he is spills ink on.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.