Judging Freedom - Steve Bannon surrenders to NY prosecutors

Episode Date: September 8, 2022

Steve Bannon surrenders to New York prosecutors in border wall fraud case https://nypost.com/2022/09/08/steve-b... #Trump #Bannon #borderwallSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, September 8, 2022. It's about 1120 in the morning here on the east coast of the United States, not too far from where I am. Steve Bannon, the former chair of the Trump for President campaign and the former senior advisor to the former president, surrendered to New York state authorities on charges of fraud and bank laundering concerning the construction of a wall or the continuation of the construction of a wall between Texas and Mexico. Wait a minute, wasn't he pardoned for that by the president? We'll get to that in a minute. Here's a clip of Steve walking into the courthouse. So while we know from someone who was very close to him that what he mumbled was, you could see him pointing and mumbling, but you couldn't hear what he was saying. It's ironic that on the same day, the mayor of New York happens to be with a team of New York City officials at the Texas-Mexico border to look at immigration issues. Now,

why is the mayor of New York down there? Because the governor of Texas is shipping busloads of immigrants to New York City. It's a long, complicated issue. Are they being duped into getting on the buses? Are they being kidnapped against their will? Are they better off in New York? Have they volunteered to come to New York? Do they know they're coming to New York? These are all issues for another time for us to discuss. But I do want to discuss Bannon's arrest and charge on these crimes,

because as you may know, he was pardoned by President Trump. So when you're pardoned for a federal crime, can you be prosecuted by the state for violating a state law when the alleged violation was the same very behavior that you were pardoned in the federal? And the answer is regrettably, I'll tell you why regrettably, the answer is regrettably yes. So the Constitution of the United States prohibits double jeopardy. It prohibits prosecuting or attempting to prosecute someone more than once for the same offense. The Supreme Court has ruled, and I profoundly would have dissented in this case. I would have dissented loud and long, and it's a great dissent. It was there, but it didn't carry the day. Supreme Court ruled 7-2

that if the very same behavior violates both federal law and state law, you can be prosecuted by both without violating double jeopardy. That case involved a felon in possession of a gun. So a person who had gone to jail served their time in jail. One of the conditions of being released is you can't have a gun for the rest of your life. This guy had a gun in the trunk of his car and he was stopped for speeding. The police asked if they could look in the trunk of the car. He foolishly said yes. In there was an AR-15. He legally owned it, but it's illegal for him to own it or possess it because he's a felon. So he was charged by the state of Alabama with being a felon in possession of a gun and was sentenced to jail. He'd just gotten out of jail, but the judge sentenced him to jail because he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.

Then the feds learned about this, and then the feds charged this guy with possession of a, with being a felon in possession of a weapon. And that prosecution was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled seven to two that the feds can do it because the federal jurisdiction and the state jurisdiction are separate. So the Supreme Court said the double jeopardy clause stops the feds from more than one prosecution and it stops the states from more than one prosecution, and it stops the states from more than one prosecution, but it doesn't stop one from prosecuting right after the other for the same event. Now, here's an example of why politics doesn't always follow on to the Supreme Court.

The dissent was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The one justice who agreed with her was Justice Neil Gorsuch. So you had, Justice Ginsburg has since died, but you had at the time the most liberal progressive jurist on the court agreeing with the most conservative libertarian jurist on the Supreme Court. You also had the traditional conservatives, Justices Alito and Thomas and Justice Alito and Thomas at the time, Kennedy, agreeing with the more liberal justices, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan. It shows that politics isn't always reflected in a judicial opinion. That is the Supreme Court opinion which allows the state of New York to prosecute Steve Bannon. It is alleged that he and his colleagues raised $25 million to be used privately on private property to resume building a wall between Texas and Mexico

that the federal government began building but didn't resume building, began building under President Trump and didn't resume building or continue building under President Biden. The allegation is that the $25 million did not go to the wall, that it went elsewhere, and that there were material misrepresentations made to the donors. He was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2020. President Trump pardoned him. Earlier this week, he was indicted by a state grand jury. Pursuant to that case involving the felon in possession of a weapon which triggered the violation of an Alabama law as well as a federal statute, the state of New York can do it. I would have dissented. I think the double jeopardy clause means you can't be pursued twice, period, whether it's by two different jurisdictions or not. But that is not the law.

I don't know if Steve Bannon is a political prisoner. I don't know if he's being pursued by people who hate Donald Trump and don't have any evidence of crime in that jurisdiction over which and for which they can prosecute him. I don't know if Steve is innocent or guilty, but I know his constitutional rights have been violated. This is a huge story. It may pale because of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and the subsequent ruling by Judge Eileen Cannon, with which all of us, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, progressives, all of us across the board think was wrong, but we'll see where that goes. But the Steve Bannon story is huge. More about it as we get it. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom.