In a pretrial hearing last week, the judge overseeing Bannon's case, Carl Nichols, entered a series of rulings that will significantly limit the lines of defense Bannon's attorneys will be able to present to the jury.Nichols said Bannon won't be able to claim he defied the subpoena because Trump asserted executive privilege over his testimony, nor can Bannon claim he relied on the advice of his lawyer, or that he was "tricked" into believing he could ignore the subpoena due to internal DOJ opinions from previous administrations about executive branch officials' immunity from complying with congressional subpoenas.Nichols also rejected Bannon's defense that prosecutors would need to show that he knew his conduct was unlawful, saying that prosecutors only need to prove that Bannon acted "deliberately" and "intentionally" to defy the Jan. 6 panel.Bannon's attorney, David Schoen, questioned the judge's rulings, asking the judge at one point, "What's the point in going to trial here if there are no defenses?"
It shouldn't take long to get through the need to hold a trial with no defenses, so we can get on to the punishment part that is the point of the exercise. Obama officials defied Congress with impunity, but special rules as always apply.
4 comments:
What aggravates me is that the Bannon trial has been scheduled before that of many who have been held -- before and without trial -- since January 2021.
A "speedy" trial, before an impartial jury, is a constitutional right protected by the Sixth Amendment. Now, the SEVENTH protects rights to a JURY trial in civil suits disputing matters of greater import than the specific sum of "Twenty Dollars." (essentially, at the time, one ounce of gold.)
It seems to me a pity the framers did not specify "speedy" in similarly specific terms. Twelve months, perhaps.
The judge is just giving Bannon several grounds for appeal. Maybe that's not so bad.
On the other hand--putting words in Bannon's mouth--there's this: "Make no mistake, Judge, my respect for the office of Congressman and for the institution of the Congress is second to none. My contempt is direct and personal for the Congressmen [...] populating the J6 Committee. These persons earn actual respect the way any honest American does--through his actions. These persons, on the contrary, have through their deeds earned nothing but the deepest contempt.
"I am not guilty of Contempt of Congress. I am deeply proud of my contempt for these individual Congressmen as persons."
Eric Hines
J. Melcher, the problem is that people, on the advice of their attorneys- who want time to prepare a defense- waive that right.
If I was a J^ defendant, I'd try to argue that I'd never have waived it had I known they'd just let me stew this long- an uninformed choice is no choice at all.
Trials in D.C. sound like a bad joke.
Post a Comment