Steve Bannon

[New Turtle]

Sloppy Steve can't do even 2 days before going into alcohol withdrawals.

[keith]

That's an insult to Pig-Pen.

No chance in hell that Bannon has the dirt of ancient civilisations on him.

[Dave from down under]

How long is his court case expected to go for?

[tek]

d-2.jpg (65.19 KiB) Viewed 854 times

that's gotta be a big boost to his ego

[Maybenaut]

This may be an unpopular opinion in these parts, but here goes:

I’m a little bothered by the fact that Bannon cannot call congresspersons as witnesses because of the speech and debate clause. He has a constitutional right to mount a defense. Although I haven’t read the motion or the ruling, I assume Bannon argued that the speech and debate privilege cannot overcome his right to mount a defense, and if his congressperson witnesses refuse to waive the speech and debate privilege, the charge should be dismissed.

That argument holds a certain amount of sway with me. The people claiming privilege are the very people who have accused him, and who presumably have evidence relevant to his defense.

I might feel differently about this if I knew what he expected these witnesses to testify to. But my kneejerk reaction as a defense attorney is that this kind of gamesmanship on the part of the government is bullshit, and congress needs to put up or shut up.

[Foggy]

Hear, hear.

[Phoenix520]

But also too Bannon is playing games with the whole shebang. He’s trying to Introduce reams of irrelevant bs into the record to muddy the waters - and iirc the judge already told him to knock it off. He’s not a by-the-rules kinda guy. This thing that you hate, maybenaut, is him, gaming and making mock.

Give him an inch and he’s likely to run off with the whole 9 yards and taunt you from behind the bushes.

Do people who deal dishonestly in every.single.thing they do deserve to be treated honestly? I know the answer, I just don’t like it.

I love it that he thinks he can’t get impartial jurors in DC because he’s such a MAGAworld god. Reality check - most of them had no idea who tf he is.

[Maybenaut]

But also too Bannon is playing games with the whole shebang. He’s trying to Introduce reams of irrelevant bs into the record to muddy the waters - and iirc the judge already told him to knock it off. He’s not a by-the-rules kinda guy. This thing that you hate, maybenaut, is him, gaming and making mock.

Give him an inch and he’s likely to run off with the whole 9 yards and taunt you from behind the bushes.

Do people who deal dishonestly in every.single.thing they do deserve to be treated honestly? I know the answer, I just don’t like it.

I love it that he thinks he can’t get impartial jurors in DC because he’s such a MAGAworld god. Reality check - most of them had no idea who tf he is.

I get it. But no matter what lame-ass tactics the defense uses, the government should take the high road. And the judge should require it because the defendant is entitled to a fair trial.

[realist]

I get it. But no matter what lame-ass tactics the defense uses, the government should take the high road. And the judge should require it because the defendant is entitled to a fair trial.

You admitted you don’t know enough about his purpose to call them, so there’s that.

That said, while it’s true everyone is entitled to a defense, you also know that not all defenses are permissible. This appears to be one of them. Perhaps.

[pipistrelle]

I agree he deserves a fair trial.

I also agree all humans in good standing in society deserve equal rights, like rights to health care decisions, privacy, and marriage.

[Ben-Prime]

I would further argue that the accusation has been spelled out in writing, in effect, specifically in the form of documentary evidence such as the subpoena and his responses to it. So to what, exactly, are the Congressfolk needed to testify?

[pipistrelle]

I would further argue that the accusation has been spelled out in writing, in effect, specifically in the form of documentary evidence such as the subpoena and his responses to it. So to what, exactly, are the Congressfolk needed to testify?

[Suranis]

I agree that some Congresspeople should be permitted to testify. But knowing him he would subpoena every single one of them and drag the trial on for weeks. A select few should be permitted and that's it, in my view. Its doubtful most of the testimony from all the Congresspeople would be materially different in any case.

A Fair and Proper defense dos not mean the Defendant should get everything he wants. It has to be fair on the Prosecution too.

[bob]

Members of Congress could testify; they're choosing no to.

But I too am at a loss as so the relevancy of their potential testimony. Even in criminal trials, judges regularly preclude evidence that would support only an inapplicable defense.

Unless Bannon's chosen defense is that committee never sent him a subpoena, calling the members appears to be a way to harass the witnesses, grandstand, and otherwise create confusion.

And there are methods to authenticate the existence and authenticity of the subpoena without calling any Member of Congress.

[Kendra]

Just waking up and catching up. From a quick scan of Scott Macfarlane twitter feed, Bannon's attorneys went from asking for a 30 day delay to maybe delay to Friday or Monday and they're still arguing about evidence they can present. Those poor jurors, I've been on one of them where we spent more time in the jury room vs sitting in court and hearing evidence. Talk about pissing off the jury, at least my boss pays for jury duty, think about the ones who don't have a boss who will pay.

[Kendra]

BANNON attorney Evan Corcoran asks for a one month delay in the trial due to "seismic shift" in understanding of the arguments they're allowed to present.

[Suranis]

Sounds like he is just shopping for a delay. That's going to piss off the Judge AND the Jurors.

"Seismic shift" my ass.

[Jim]

Sounds like he is just shopping for a delay. That's going to piss off the Judge AND the Jurors.

"Seismic shift" my ass.

Well, yeah, a Seismic shift of this judge is not going to allow you to fill the jury with a lot of BS just to muddy the waters.

[Maybenaut]

I get it. But no matter what lame-ass tactics the defense uses, the government should take the high road. And the judge should require it because the defendant is entitled to a fair trial.

You admitted you don’t know enough about his purpose to call them, so there’s that.

That said, while it’s true everyone is entitled to a defense, you also know that not all defenses are permissible. This appears to be one of them. Perhaps.

I did. I’m just saying this sort of thing bothers me. I see it in my practice all. the. time.

[Kendra]

The fate of Steve Bannon, who once said that people should wear it as a “badge of honor” when someone calls them a racist, will be in the hands of a majority non-white jury.

[neonzx]

[bob]

Bannon wants to argue that due to ongoing discussions between his lawyer and the select committee — over executive privilege, immunity and other claims — he believed the deadline to comply with the subpoena was flexible.

At least we're warming up to a defense for which a committee member's testimony might be relevant.

If Bannon's defense is that the committee waived compliance with the subpoena, then the testimony of the committee member (or staffer) who suggested (or agreed to) a purported waiver would be relevant.

But such evidence could be introduced by the person who represented Bannon. And if this representative testified that the committee waived compliance, it would be the prosecutor that would want to call the committee member to contradict the testimony in support of Bannon.

In other words, it would be the prosecutor and not Bannon wanting the committee member to testify. And under such a circumstance, I could see a committee member waiving Speech-and-Debate immunity.

[noblepa]

Members of Congress could testify; they're choosing no to.

But I too am at a loss as so the relevancy of their potential testimony. Even in criminal trials, judges regularly preclude evidence that would support only an inapplicable defense.

Unless Bannon's chosen defense is that committee never sent him a subpoena, calling the members appears to be a way to harass the witnesses, grandstand, and otherwise create confusion.

And there are methods to authenticate the existence and authenticity of the subpoena without calling any Member of Congress.

I suspect that Bannon wants to call congress-critters to testify, so he can ask them all kinds of irrelevant questions, about their involvement in stealing the election from Trump and other conspiracy-theory based questions. I seriously doubt that he will ask them anything at all about the question before the court, which is did he refuse to respond to a legitimate subpoena, and why?

He wants to turn it around and put congress on trial.

[bob]

He wants to turn it around and put congress on trial.

Which is why the judge's initial denial makes sense.

But Bannon may yet get his wish if he has evidence that the committee waived compliance.

[noblepa]

He wants to turn it around and put congress on trial.

Which is why the judge's initial denial makes sense.

But Bannon may yet get his wish if he has evidence that the committee waived compliance.

IANAL, but doesn't Bannon's attorney have to specify what line of questioning he wants a potential witness to testify to? Wouldn't this allow the judge to decide whether or not a specific congress person should be called?

Wouldn't it also allow a judge to stop a line of questioning at trial, if Bannon's attorney strays from the topics included in the subpoena?