US District Court Judge Carl Nichols dealt Bannon a series of adverse rulings in a pre-trial hearing Monday. Bannon faces two charges of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the committee investigating the 1/6 attack on the US Capitol.
To get a feel for how bad this turned out for Bannon, at the conclusion of the hearing his attorney questioned the judges rulings by saying
"what's the point in going to trial here if there are no defenses?"
The Court:
.....also, it is probably worth mentioning that Nichols was apppointed to the D.C. bench by Donald Trump.
To get a feel for how bad this turned out for Bannon, at the conclusion of the hearing his attorney questioned the judges rulings by saying
"what's the point in going to trial here if there are no defenses?"
The Court:
- threw out Bannon's claim of executive priviege, his main defense, ruling that DOJ internal opinions are not applicable to this case and he cannot claim that he relied upon them; and further, that he is prohibited from asserting that he believed Trump had exerted executive privilege over his testimony.
- ruled that prosecutors only need to prove that Bannon's non-compliance was deliberate and intentional; they do not need to prove that he knew it was "wrong".
- ruled that Bannon cannot question witnesses about their political affiiation.
- said Bannon cannot present a "public authority" defense because Trump was not a federal official when the subpoena was issued.
- ruled that Bannon cannot introduce "selective prosecution" evidence i.e. that Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino defied congressional subpoenas and have not been criminally charged,
- said that Nancy Pelosi cannot be subpoenaed by the defense or called to tesify.
- ruled against Bannon's motion to delay the trial scheduled to begin July 18th.
.....also, it is probably worth mentioning that Nichols was apppointed to the D.C. bench by Donald Trump.
Last edited: