Posted on 04/06/2022 7:58:04 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Steve Bannon suffered a setback ahead of his criminal trial when a judge on Wednesday ordered that he could not tell jurors he relied on advice from lawyers when he defied a subpoena to answer questions about the January 6 violence before Congress.
He was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents and testimony to lawmakers investigating the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters.
Bannon's lawyers argued in a February filing that he had acted in good faith, based on the advice of veteran defense attorney Robert Costello, that he could not give evidence unless the Jan. 6 committee brokered a deal with Trump or convinced a federal court to agree to waive executive privilege.
'The government alleges that Mr. Bannon committed a crime,' his lawyers said
'Every act that they intend to rely upon as proof involved Mr Bannon's reliance upon legal advice.'
But on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Donald Trump, nixed the defense.
He ruled that the 'advice of counsel' defense cannot be used in contempt of Congress cases, citing a 1961 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals that said what mattered was the fact that the defendant intentionally defied a subpoena.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I meant outmaneuver this setback.
When was the last time a Democrat was prosecuted for contempt of Congress?
Wasn’t Obama’s AG Holder held in contempt? I don’t remember if he was prosecuted or not.
Or a solid pleading the 5th amendment right against self incrimination.
They don't prosecute Democrats in DC anymore. I think Marian Barry was the last one.
His lawyers are correct on this one. The case the judge cites does not involve executive privilege of a president of the United States. It involved a mafia boss that refused to show up to a hearing. There are separation of powers issues here.
....... YUP .... For the Fast and Furious fiasco .... but he insisted that the whole charge was ... Yup .... “Politically Motivated” and ..... “Misguided”..... Which, of course, only holds water when it's a Democrat facing the charges ...
Besides, Bannon was out of office long before the Jan. 6 incident happened, so I don't know what would be privileged about him.
-PJ
It seems to me that the problem lies with Bannon’s lawyers. There is a ton of Executive Privilege precedent, but they chose to use the precedent of the case against a *mobster*.
While it might be technically closest, it has the “appearance” of criminality, and they should have been afraid that it would stain their client.
He was in charge of the DOJ at the time. That's why nothing was ever done. He wasn't about to call a Grand Jury to indict himself.
The Jan 6th Commission is our very own Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution
Where is the investigation about what happened to the WMDs in Iraq?
I see what you’re saying.
“Carl John Nichols is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”
The DC District is totally corrupt.
When is Eric Holder going to be tried criminally for his contempt of Congress?
Isn’t the defense attorney due “discovery” rights?
What better way to find the workings in all the hanky-panky
we see being asserted?
I had thought that was the strategy Bannons lawyers were going to use. Matter of fact, I think I explicitly remember it on his show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.