Steve Bannon

[bob]

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?

The judge already has denied Bannon's request to have Members of Congress testify.

But, if a Member of Congress did end up testifying, opposing counsel can always interpose objections, like relevance, and the judge would rule on the objection.

[Foggy]

The fate of Steve Bannon ... will be in the hands of a majority non-white jury.

Now why hasn't he asked for a continuance based on that, I wonder?

[Foggy]

Oh wait, a defense, I haz one.

See, the whole country was converted into a corporation way back in 1871 ...

[Kendra]

https://twitter.com/JordanOnRecord

Jordan's keeping the pace going with updates.

[bob]

Bannon's subpoena was moved into evidence.

[Dave from down under]

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.

Ban non might claim the Gawd waived compliance - but if he doesn’t have that in writing the claim is hardly evidence.

[bob]

Ban non might claim the Gawd waived compliance - but if he doesn’t have that in writing the claim is hardly evidence.

Testimony that compliance was verbally waived would be evidence.

It might be not compelling evidence, but it would be evidence.

[Dave from down under]

He could claim the evidence is on Hunter Biden’s laptop..

When does such claims become sanctionable?

[bob]

He could claim the evidence is on Hunter Biden’s laptop..

Testimony of that nature wouldn't be admissible.

If Bannon wants Hunter's laptop brought into court, the first step would be to for him to subpoena its custodian. That hasn't happened.

When does such claims become sanctionable?

Attorneys owe a duty of candor to the courts. Good-faith application of existing laws is part of zealous advocacy. Lying to the court is not.

[Foggy]

If Bannon wants Hunter's laptop brought into court, the first step would be to for him to subpoena its custodian. That hasn't happened.

No fair!

Nobody on this blue and green planet has the slightest idea who the aforementioned custodian, in fact, is.

So he's being PREVENTED from serving a subpoena on her (or him).

[Maybenaut]

Ban non might claim the Gawd waived compliance - but if he doesn’t have that in writing the claim is hardly evidence.

Testimony that compliance was verbally waived would be evidence.

It might be not compelling evidence, but it would be evidence.

That’s the sort of thing I was getting at. Well, not that God waived compliance but that congress members may have. Whether such testimony is compelling evidence is a question of fact for the jury. If that’s what he’s claiming, he should be able to present it.

[bob]

If that’s what he’s claiming, he should be able to present it.

I would expect, at a minimum, an offer of proof concerning the evidence that a Member of Congress waived compliance before a court would allow such a witness to be called.

[Maybenaut]

If that’s what he’s claiming, he should be able to present it.

I would expect, at a minimum, an offer of proof concerning the evidence that a Member of Congress waived compliance before a court would allow such a witness to be called.

No doubt. But if the defense can make such an offer of proof, neither the congressperson nor the executive should be able to turn the speech and debate clause into a sword. That what’s bothering me.

[bob]

But if the defense can make such an offer of proof, neither the congressperson nor the executive should be able to turn the speech and debate clause into a sword.

If the defense was being competently handled (and had an eye toward an appeal), counsel could believe the record already has been sufficiently made, not press the issue, and then (if Bannon is convicted), argue on appeal that he was denied his defense. I suspect, however, such a claim would lose on the state of this record (due to the lack of an offer of proof).

Counsel could cross-examine the prosecutor's witnesses about a waiver. (The prosecutor's first witness is the committee's general counsel, who presumably would know whether there was any waiver.) But the witnesses presumably would deny any waiver ever happened. So the claim would again lose on appeal.

Counsel, in Bannon's case, could attempt to call a Member of Congress to testify about a waiver. But given the court's previous rulings, I suspect the judge would tell counsel instead to call a witness not covered by the Speech and Debate clause, like Bannon's representative who purportedly received the waiver. And, again, on appeal I suspect the judge's decision to control which witnesses testify would be affirmed.

But I don't believe there's an eye toward appeal; I also have doubts about counsel's competence. Because counsel appears to be kitchen-sinking it to muddy the waters. (But, hey, reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt.)

[bob]

Amerling is done testifying, so it would appear speech-and-debate wasn't an issue during her cross-examination.

[Dave from down under]

The side bar might have altered the line of questioning.

[Dr. Ken]

[Kriselda Gray]

DOJ rested their case after 2 witnesses.

[bob]

DOJ rested their case after 2 witnesses.

CNN:

Several defenses that Bannon might try to put forward were undermined by the paper trail of documents the committee sent him regarding his subpoena and the prosecution was able to put those documents on display through its questioning of Amerling.

The documents showed that Bannon was warned that his noncompliance with the subpoena risked a criminal referral. They showed that the committee rejected his claims that Trump assertions of executive privilege precluded him from cooperated. And they showed that the committee reaffirmed the subpoena deadlines and lawmakers' expectations that he comply by then.

Amerling was also questioned about the responses the committee received from Bannon's attorney. She testified that Bannon never asked for the deadlines to be moved, nor did he give the committee reasons that in the committee's view would help justify his lack of compliance, such as that he didn't understand the directions of the subpoena.

This testimony was important to the Justice Department's case because it pokes holes in the key category of defense Bannon is allowed to put on: challenging the firmness of the subpoena deadlines.

Through the paper trail, the prosecution wanted the jury to see that he had the opportunity to explain such an issue, and never did so -- particularly in the face of repeated confirmations from the committee that it expected him to comply by the deadline. And the committee, at least according to the documents offered during Amerling's testimony, never gave Bannon a signal that the deadlines for compliance were softening.

Kept it simple.

Edit: Fixed link.

[Delarin]

CNN:

Links to Ankeny v. Indiana?

[bob]

Wrong link. Fixed, or try this one.

[Kendra]

ALERT: Bannon defense attorney will not present case to jury. No evidence. No witnesses

No Bannon

Judge reserves ruling on the motion for a judgment of acquittal until the end of the case. Nothing of substance can be read into this, IMO. Still waiting to see if the defense will call any witnesses, present any evidence or if Bannon will testify.

[Kendra]

SCHOEN says among the things they'd want to interview committee members about is the decision to keep Reps. Banks/Jordan off the committee...

Except that was a unilateral Pelosi decision, so she'd be the only one who can testify firsthand about it.

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-22/ ... /101260044

The defence in Steve Bannon's trial has rested its case without calling any witnesses, asking the judge to acquit him.

Key points:
Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former presidential adviser, has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanour counts.
The prosecution called two witnesses over two days
Mr Bannon told reporters: "I stand with Trump and the constitution"
Mr Bannon is charged with contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena by the committee investigating last year's attack on the US Capitol.

Donald Trump's noted former presidential adviser, Mr Bannon, 68, has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanour counts.

Closing arguments from both sides are expected on Friday, with the jury then due to begin deliberations.

The defence argued motions asking Judge Nichols to acquit Mr Bannon, contending the prosecution failed to prove its case, or dismiss the charges because the defendant was blocked from calling as witnesses politicians who sit on the committee, undermining his right to a fair trial.

Such motions are common and rarely granted.

In a court filing, Judge Nichols said he intended to rule on both motions after the jury reached a verdict.

[Kendra]

Bannon's defense team argues the Bannon "feature segment" of the Jan 6 committee hearing Thursday night
was "particularly inflammatory"