ADVERTISEMENT

Bannon will not call witnesses in his defense

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,133
58,316
113
Lawyers for Stephen K. Bannon said they will not call any witnesses in his defense, arguing that prosecutors had failed to show their client was guilty of contempt of Congress for his alleged refusal to provide testimony or documents to the Jan. 6 committee.
After the government called just two witnesses to make its case against Bannon, his defense team told U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols Thursday morning that they do not plan to present a case to the panel.
“You are not intending to put on any evidence to the jury?” Nichols asked. “Correct, your honor,” said Bannon lawyer David Schoen.
There is still a debate over the judge’s denial of a defense attempt to call as a witness the House committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). Bannon attorney M. Evan Corcoran argued that the prosecution’s case boiled down to one witness, the panel’s chief counsel. He said Kristin Amerling testified that she did not see Thompson sign the subpoena to Bannon and for that reason, he said, the government has not proved that the subpoena was valid.
Bannon’s lawyer said Amerling also did not say whether Thompson wrote any part of the letters sent from the committee to Bannon’s lawyers that the prosecution said established that Bannon did not meet the committee’s deadlines.
Bannon’s defense has argued that the judge either should allow Bannon to call Thompson as a witness, which Nichols has rejected, or grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal, a frequently made but rarely granted motion that defendants file once the government rests its case, arguing that prosecutors have not met their burden of proof.

 
023e3788-439a-4cf4-812d-cdb09dbd42d5_text.gif
 
What witnesses? Is there a witness who can swear that Bannon was physically unable to make the hearings? Dude just needed to show up. That's really all that matters.

It strikes me as a last ditch Hail Mary, after the judge blocked him from raising conspiracy theories in his defense, executive privilege defense was laughed at, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It strikes me as a last ditch Hail Mary, after the judge blocked him from raising conspiracy theories in his defense, executive privilege defense was laughed at, etc.
There was truly no reason not to show up. He couldn't be compelled to testify to anything that might implicate him in a crime. Even if granted immunity, he could still say he couldn't recall. If he wanted to screw with Congress, that would have been better than not showing up. Frustrate them, and stay out of jail.
 
There was truly no reason not to show up. He couldn't be compelled to testify to anything that might implicate him in a crime. Even if granted immunity, he could still say he couldn't recall. If he wanted to screw with Congress, that would have been better than not showing up. Frustrate them, and stay out of jail.

Oh I think he was definitely trying to run out the clock. Idk how much he would have been guilty of himself, but he represents a unique window into Trump. And being forced to testify about that would destroy his position with Trumpers.
 
Lawyers for Stephen K. Bannon said they will not call any witnesses in his defense, arguing that prosecutors had failed to show their client was guilty of contempt of Congress for his alleged refusal to provide testimony or documents to the Jan. 6 committee.
After the government called just two witnesses to make its case against Bannon, his defense team told U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols Thursday morning that they do not plan to present a case to the panel.
“You are not intending to put on any evidence to the jury?” Nichols asked. “Correct, your honor,” said Bannon lawyer David Schoen.
There is still a debate over the judge’s denial of a defense attempt to call as a witness the House committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). Bannon attorney M. Evan Corcoran argued that the prosecution’s case boiled down to one witness, the panel’s chief counsel. He said Kristin Amerling testified that she did not see Thompson sign the subpoena to Bannon and for that reason, he said, the government has not proved that the subpoena was valid.
Bannon’s lawyer said Amerling also did not say whether Thompson wrote any part of the letters sent from the committee to Bannon’s lawyers that the prosecution said established that Bannon did not meet the committee’s deadlines.
Bannon’s defense has argued that the judge either should allow Bannon to call Thompson as a witness, which Nichols has rejected, or grant his motion for a judgment of acquittal, a frequently made but rarely granted motion that defendants file once the government rests its case, arguing that prosecutors have not met their burden of proof.

I’ll take “things guilty people do for $500, Alex” 😂
 
I suppose everything he's done since last week is aimed at an appeal. Which, should go about as well for him as this trial has.
 
ADVERTISEMENT