R.I.P. Scout26
The problem isn't with showing contempt for Congress . . . the problem is trying to hide it.Sounds like the trial took place in a real kangaroo court - the judge basically ruled Bannon couldn't say anything in his own defense.
Sounds like the trial took place in a real kangaroo court - the judge basically ruled Bannon couldn't say anything in his own defense.
What?
A series of pretrial rulings has left Bannon virtually defenseless, precluding him from presenting a number of arguments his defense lawyers hoped to raise. At a hearing in Washington, DC, last week that eviscerated many of Bannon's planned defenses, US District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled that his lawyers could not argue that executive privilege excused his refusal to sit for questioning or turn over records to the House January 6 committee.Nichols, a Trump appointee confirmed in 2019, similarly prevented Bannon's defense team from arguing that his past role as former President Donald Trump's chief White House strategist justified his defiance. The judge also forbade Bannon's lawyers from pointing to internal Justice Department memos describing limits on congressional subpoenas, and he extinguished the onetime Trump advisor's hope of calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers to testify.Months earlier, Nichols ruled that Bannon could not argue he decided not to comply with the House committee's subpoena based on the advice of his lawyer.
Is there any rational explanation for this other than outright political lawfare?We’re edging ever closer to people like Bannon being “disappeared” rather than bothering with trial. God help us once that starts.
https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-trial-house-january-6-contempt-congress-appeal-2022-7?IR=T&r=US&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.comI didn't know that defense lawyers were required to clear their planned defense with the judge ahead of time - it just doesn't seem right to me. It seems like this was one judicial appointment Trump screwed up.
"If this were a matter of first impression, the Court might be inclined to agree with [Bannon] and allow this evidence in," Nichols wrote.An appeal from Bannon could present the DC Circuit with an opportunity to revisit that precedent.
