Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26335House OversightOther

Bannon email discussing 2018 political outlook and Mueller investigation

The passage is a forward‑looking political commentary from Steve Bannon with no concrete allegations, transaction details, or new evidence. It mentions Donald Trump, the Mueller investigation, and Bre Bannon references pressure on Trump from the Mueller investigation. Mentions upcoming Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Speculates about a possible third‑party or “chaos” candidate in 2020

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #026304
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a forward‑looking political commentary from Steve Bannon with no concrete allegations, transaction details, or new evidence. It mentions Donald Trump, the Mueller investigation, and Bre Bannon references pressure on Trump from the Mueller investigation. Mentions upcoming Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Speculates about a possible third‑party or “chaos” candidate in 2020

Tags

potential-election-influencemueller-investigationpolitical-strategykavanaughpolitical-speculationtrumphouse-oversightbannon

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Date: Friday, August 3 2018 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Exclusive: Bannon blasts 'con artist’ Kochs, ‘lame duck' Ryan, 'diminished' Kelly | TheHill From: Steve Bannon {a > To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com>; Where is this from??? On Aug 3, 2018, at 8:17 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > wrote: keep close ! This much we know - the Fall elections are shaping up to be a referendum on the most divisive American President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination this fall will only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply overwrought on both sides. The rising tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation shows no sign of ebbing. Unless the underlying political dynamics are disrupted, the outcomes of these unprecedented events will still leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election. Watching these unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all asking the same question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump should not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own “chaos” candidate in 2020? Should Trump run again, this could be a “break glass” moment for the majority of Americans who don’t support him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and seemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play such outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system failed in 2016, with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to build a back-up plan in the event the system fails again. It's possible, of course, that we won’t need a third-party candidate. Trump could decide not to run for

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Emailjeevacation@gmail.com
Wire Refreferendum

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Steve Bannon <I

5p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02518013

1p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01615550

7p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01656066

0p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Trump meets with top health‑care executives at Mar‑a‑Lago amid ACA repeal push

The passage lists specific senior executives from major medical institutions and two billionaire CEOs meeting the president‑elect, suggesting possible influence on health‑care policy. It provides name Meeting took place on Dec. 28, 2016 at Mar‑a‑Lago, Palm Beach. Attendees included CEOs of Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Partners HealthCare, Cleveland Clini No donors to Trump’s campaign among

4p
House OversightUnknown

iMessage thread hints at paid media production, high‑level political figures, and covert coordination with foreign interests

iMessage thread hints at paid media production, high‑level political figures, and covert coordination with foreign interests The conversation contains multiple actionable clues – a $100k invoice, references to a ‘cast’ for filming, mentions of Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Michael Wolff, and Chinese market manipulation – that suggest a coordinated media or influence operation involving powerful political actors and foreign financial interests. While the specifics are vague, the repeated references to payments, legal arrangements, and government sensitivity provide concrete follow‑up leads (e.g., trace the $100k invoice, identify the production crew, locate the ‘letter to Burke’, and verify the alleged Chinese market influence). The content is moderately controversial and ties to high‑profile individuals, warranting further investigation. Key insights: Reference to sending an invoice for $100k to Darren – potential payment for services.; Discussion of assembling a ‘cast’ and filming on an island, with government interest in controlling press.; Mentions of Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, and Bannon in a context suggesting exploitation or coordinated messaging.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.