Connect with us

J6 News

Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene Co-Sponsor Resolution to Rescind Subpoenas for Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro



Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have co-sponsored a resolution to rescind subpoenas issued to former Trump administration officials Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. This legislative move addresses ongoing legal battles linked to the investigation of the January 6th Capitol riot.

Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist, and Peter Navarro, former White House Trade Advisor, were subpoenaed by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. The committee seeks their testimony and documents regarding their involvement in efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election results.

The resolution co-sponsored by Massie and Greene aims to nullify subpoenas handed out to former White House Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, and former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro, who were subpoenaed by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. Massie and Greene argue that the subpoenas are politically motivated and infringe upon the rights of individuals associated with former President Donald Trump.

The move to rescind the subpoenas comes amid ongoing debates over the scope and direction of the January 6th investigation. The Select Committee has faced criticism from some Republican lawmakers who view its actions as partisan and overreaching. The resolution to rescind the subpoenas is seen by its supporters as a necessary check on the committee’s power.

Steve Bannon was indicted for contempt of Congress in November 2021 after he defied the subpoena, citing executive privilege. He argued that his communications with Trump were protected, even though he was not a government employee at the time of the events in question. Bannon is scheduled to report to prison on July 1 of this year.

Peter Navarro has also resisted cooperating with the committee, citing executive privilege and concerns about the committee’s motivations. Navarro has been an outspoken supporter of Trump’s claims of election fraud and has criticized the committee’s efforts as politically driven. Navarro currently is in prison, serving his four-month sentence after being convicted of contempt by Congress for defying said subpoena related to the investigation into the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The resolution will now proceed to the House floor for consideration. Its passage remains uncertain due to the deep partisan divides in Congress. The outcome will likely depend on the broader political dynamics and the positions of key lawmakers on the January 6th investigation.

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

J6 News

J6 Committee Was Established in Violation of Law: Raising Concerns of Unlawful Arrests of Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro



In a contentious battle between congressional oversight and claims of executive privilege, the House January 6th “Select” Committee has come under fire for what critics argue are blatant violations of procedural and constitutional norms. Most notably, the recent cases involving Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro have ignited a firestorm of legal debate and public outcry.

Jeff Clark, a Senior Fellow at Citizens for Renewing America, has been a vocal critic of the committee’s actions, asserting that all depositions and subpoenas issued by the J6 Committee exceed its lawful authority. According to Clark, the foundational premise upon which Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were held in criminal contempt of Congress is, in his words, a “nothing burger.”

“The J6 Committee was established in violation of the law,” Clark contends, adding that it was crafted to fulfill predetermined outcomes rather than serve genuine investigative purposes. Clark further criticizes the committee for its procedural irregularities, including its composition, the lack of Republican influence in member selection, and the absence of a Ranking Minority Member or Minority Counsel.

Steve Bannon, a prominent figure in the populist conservative movement and a close advisor to former President Donald Trump, has been a primary target of the committee. Recently ordered by a federal judge to begin a four-month prison term starting July 1, 2024, Bannon’s case has garnered widespread attention and sparked accusations of partisan maneuvering aimed at stifling his influence.

Clark and Citizens for Renewing America argue that Bannon’s assertions of executive privilege, conveyed through President Trump and his legal team, were summarily dismissed by the committee. This dismissal, they argue, underscores the committee’s disregard for fundamental legal protections and its singular focus on silencing dissenting voices rather than uncovering the truth behind the events of January 6th.

Moreover, Clark and his organization point to the imprisonment of Peter Navarro, another advisor to Trump, as further evidence of the committee’s overreach. They urge immediate action from concerned citizens, calling for support to compel the House to intervene. Their proposed actions include directing the House General Counsel to file legal briefs supporting Bannon’s legal challenges and advocating for a House Resolution condemning the committee’s actions and highlighting its alleged misconduct.

“We must end the unfair and unconstitutional weaponization of government against individuals like Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro,” Clark emphasized. “The Speaker of the House and all Members must act swiftly to rectify these severe injustices.”

As the legal battles continue to unfold, the fate of Bannon and Navarro remains uncertain. Their cases have become emblematic of broader concerns over the limits of congressional authority and the protection of individual rights in the face of partisan investigations.

In the coming days, the nation will watch closely as these issues unfold, with implications that extend beyond individual cases to the very foundation of congressional oversight and executive privilege in American governance.

Continue Reading

J6 News

Trump Secret Service Driver Offered to Debunk Hutchinson’s False Claims of Struggle in Limo with President, Rebuffed Multiple Times by J6 Committee



House investigators have obtained evidence indicating that a Secret Service driver for former President Donald Trump sought to swiftly refute Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony regarding a struggle in the presidential limousine during the January 6 Capitol riots. However, the Democrat-led January 6 committee delayed his testimony for months, potentially influencing the 2022 midterm elections.

Background and Hutchinson’s Testimony

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House aide, testified in nationally televised hearings in June 2022, claiming that Trump tried to violently commandeer his Secret Service limousine on January 6, 2021, to go to the Capitol. Her account was widely covered and came just five months before the midterm elections.

The Secret Service Driver’s Attempt to Testify

Evidence reviewed by Just the News and confirmed by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, chairman of the House subcommittee investigating January 6 for Republicans, shows that the Secret Service driver offered to testify as early as July 2022. The driver’s lawyer indicated multiple attempts were made in July, August, and September, but the committee, led by Chairman Rep. Benny Thompson and Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney, did not respond until November 2022, a day before the elections.

Loudermilk’s Criticism of the Committee

Loudermilk criticized the delay, suggesting it kept crucial information from the public ahead of the midterm elections. He expressed concerns over the committee’s handling of the investigation and the timing of releasing testimonies. According to Loudermilk, the committee did not bring the Secret Service driver to testify until months after Hutchinson’s allegations, despite the driver’s willingness to provide testimony shortly after her claims.

The Driver’s Testimony

The transcript of the driver’s testimony reveals that he refuted Hutchinson’s account, stating that Trump never tried to reach for or grab the wheel of the SUV. Hutchinson had admitted she was not in the vehicle when the alleged incident occurred. The driver’s lawyer criticized the committee for delaying the testimony, arguing it should have been heard sooner.

Cheney’s Explanation and Further Delays

Rep. Liz Cheney attempted to explain the delay by stating the committee wanted to wait until all documents from the Secret Service were produced for the investigation. However, she did not clarify why Hutchinson’s testimony was allowed in June before these documents were received, while the driver’s refutation was delayed until November.

Concerns Over Document Handling

Loudermilk expressed significant concerns regarding the way the investigation was conducted by Thompson and Cheney. He noted that transcripts and other critical materials were kept from his committee for months after he assumed his position. Loudermilk suggested that either the committee’s document preservation was severely flawed or that there was an intentional effort to withhold certain testimonies.

Request for Further Communications

Loudermilk has also requested communications between Alyssa Farah Griffin, former White House director of Strategic Communication, and the January 6 Committee, including exchanges with Hutchinson before her public testimony. He aims to understand the interactions and decisions made leading up to Hutchinson’s statements.


The delay in the Secret Service driver’s testimony raises questions about the January 6 Committee’s handling of critical evidence and its potential impact on public perception ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The decision to allow Hutchinson’s sensational claims to go unchallenged for months has drawn criticism and calls for further investigation into the committee’s procedures and motives.

Continue Reading

2024 Race

Supreme Court ruling could overturn 300 J6 convictions, destroy case against Trump




The case against former President Donald Trump and 300 other felony convictions stemming from the events of January 6 may face a major setback after the United States Supreme Court indicated it would consider an obstruction law that was used against them.

The case, Fischer v. United States, involves the prosecution of January 6 defendant Joseph Fischer. The former police officer was accused of inflaming a mob that tried to enter the Capitol and pushing against police, and he was charged with multiple federal crimes. His case challenges the Justice Department’s interpretation of the charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding,” section 1512(c)(2), which was also used against hundreds of other defendants who took part in the events at the Capitol that day, including Trump. The charge criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, interfering with, or impeding official government proceedings and has a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The “official proceeding” in this instance was Congress’ official final tally of Electoral College votes, the last step in recognizing Biden’s victory against Trump. The accusation stems from a 2002 statute enacted in the aftermath of the Enron scandal and is primarily used to punish behavior involving evidence destruction. The question of whether it relates to allegedly disrupting the election count process has dominated the prosecutions of January 6 defendants.

Explaining the gravity of the situation, investigative reporter Julie Kelly who wrote on X/Twitter: “This is a day so many J6ers have been waiting for. Lives destroyed, people rotting in prison. All bc Biden’s DOJ abused a post-Enron evidence tampering statute. And what will Jack Smith do now? 2 of 4 counts in his indictment in jeopardy. This is potentially more impactful than immunity issue.”

If the courts do overturn the interpretation of the law, then it might have far-reaching consequences since it served as the basis for numerous major January 6 lawsuits. As a consequence, at least one defendant has already made a move. Ethan Seitz, who was convicted of criminal obstruction of justice after breaking into the Capitol via a shattered glass, urged his trial-level judge to delay a sentence hearing next month due to the ongoing case “in the interests of judicial economy.”

Former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe said: “A ruling against the government in the Fischer case in the Supreme Court could well have a ripple effect in many other Capitol riot cases where the defendants were charged with the same obstruction of justice provision, went to trial (as opposed to pleading guilty) and were convicted.”

Some legal experts have predicted that Trump’s federal election interference trial, which is scheduled for March, will be held until a decision on the Fischer case is handed down by the Supreme Court. The high court will be given until June to hand down a ruling.

The move marks the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to review the prosecution of someone who was involved in the events of January 6.


Continue Reading