HomePoliticsMajor Development: Judge Hints At Tossing Steve Bannon Conviction

Major Development: Judge Hints At Tossing Steve Bannon Conviction

Published on

Steve Bannon, presenter of the wildly popular program War Room, and his legal team have what one legal expert describes as “strong legal grounds” to overturn Bannon’s recent conviction if a court accepts their appeal.

Bannon, a former Trump administration staffer and a favorite target of the left, through one of the craziest trials of the summer and was found guilty of failing to testify before a corrupt and out-of-control US House committee.

The Bannon legal team’s justification for not allowing him to speak before the House ‘dog and pony show’ was that Bannon may have violated President Donald J. Trump’s executive privilege by appearing.

Gregg Jarrett further on Bannon’s condition and stated that Bannon’s guilty verdict for failing to reply to a subpoena issued by an unlawful US House Committee on January 6, 2022, might be overturned, which would be excellent news for many people.

In a recent piece, Jarrett expressed confidence that Bannon’s sentence might be reversed, stating that Bannon had “strong legal grounds” for this.

Hamza provided The Raging Patriot with further details:

In October of this year, Bannon was sentenced to 120 days in jail for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 inquiry committee of the House, which was run by Democrats.

In the aforementioned article, Jarrett asserts that an improperly petitioned “willful” confrontation of a subpoena is proclaimed in a “61-year-old circuit court case that was based on a Supreme Court decision that was later repudiated by the high court and overturned.”

“Steve Bannon could get his Jan. 6 conviction thrown out, according to Gregg Jarrett,” RSBN 🇺🇸 (@RSBNetwork) posted on Twitter on December 7, 2022.

“Even U.S. district court judge Carl Nichols recognizes that Bannon’s contempt conviction is likely to get tossed out, which is why he took the extraordinary step of issuing a stay of sentence pending appeal. When Bannon was subpoenaed by the J-6 Committee, Trump’s lawyer sent him a letter stating that the president invoked executive privilege and therefore directed him not to testify. Trump holds the privilege, not Bannon. Under law, Bannon cannot waive it or violate it. So, on advice of his own counsel, Bannon declined to testify. It was the correct advice,” Jarrett stated.

The Raging Patriot reported:

“But at a hearing, Judge Nichols claimed a wrong standard on “willful” confrontation of a judicial subpoena. He was depending on an obsolete 61-year-old DC circuit court case (Licavoli v. U.S., 1961) that was formed on a Supreme Court ruling that was rejected and turned over by the high court later on. The correct merit, as Supreme Court has articulated, is that the prosecutors must be obliged to show that the accused is well aware of his illegal acts. But an accused cannot be sentenced if he thinks his reply to the subpoena is legal,” adding:

Bannon counted on the suggestion from his lawyer that he could not attest because of the administrative authority. This is why Bannon believed he was taking measures legally. He did not go against the law as he was following his lawyer’s advice.

After Bannon’s conviction by the jury in Washington D.C, a well-known lawyer Alan Dershowitz had a talk with Newsmax host Greta Van Susteren.

Dershowitz stated that the judgment was “entirely in violation of the Constitution” and predicted that a higher court will “very likely” overturn it.

“The only provision of the Constitution, which appears basically twice, is trial by jury in and in front of a fair jury. Number one, he didn’t have a fair jury. Number two, the judge took his defenses away from him,” Dershowitz said.

After Van Susteren said the D.C. district where the trial was held is “94 percent Democrat,” Dershowitz chimed in, “Well, not only that but probably 97 percent Trump haters.”

Dershowitz further added: “And all you had to do was say, ‘Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this man Bannon worked for Trump.’ That’s the end of the case.”

“Entirely predictable and entirely in violation of the Constitution. The only provision of the Constitution which appears basically twice is trial by jury, in front of a fair jury. Number one he didn’t have a fair jury. Number two the judge took his defenses away from him. The judge denied him a jury trial. They wouldn’t allow him to put on evidence that he believed there was an executive privilege involved and he wanted a judicial determination before he violated the executive privilege. That issue could not be presented to the jury,” Dershowitz said.

“As I predicted on this show and other shows before this conviction was a foregone conclusion. The only issue is will it be reversed by an appeal. Either by the appellate court in the District of Columbia or by the Supreme Court. I think it’s very likely that this conviction will be reversed at some point,” Dershowitz added.

Bannon’s defense team has also previously asserted that the trial was unfair, as evidenced by the fact that it has been documented. On the basis of only two witness accounts, the jury reached a verdict. It is therefore quite likely that the appeal will be successful and the conviction will be overturned if the United States law is to be respected and its reputation restored.

Latest articles

Pentagon Confirms a Second Chinese Surveillance Balloon Has Been Spotted

Friday, the Pentagon disclosed that a second Chinese surveillance balloon had been sighted in...

FBI Now Involved in Investigation of GOP Lawmaker’s Death as It’s Revealed She Was Shot 7 Times in Head: Report

WABC-TV reports that the FBI is participating in the investigation of the Wednesday evening...

Republican Lawmaker Found Dead In Her Car With Multiple Gunshot Wounds in Reported ‘Targeted Attack’

This week, a recently elected Republican councilwoman was murdered in front of her home,...

Matt Gaetz’s Amendment to Say Pledge of Allegiance Causes Dems to Absolutely Lose It

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida proposed an amendment to the House Judiciary Committee's rules...

More like this