Steve Bannon, the host of the television program War Room, had his attorneys file a plea for a new trial following a bizarre July trial in which a jury found him guilty and sentenced him to jail time for an excessive ‘Contempt of Congress’ charge.
As a member of Donald J. Trump’s administration, Bannon’s accusation was evidently weaponized against him. Daily developments indicate that the majority of Washington, D.C., has credibility issues when dealing with President Donald J. Trump and his associates, such as Bannon.
Along with this worry is the fact that Bannon was not permitted to bring any of the members of Congress who accused him to court because they hid behind the notion that they are permitted to lie while in Congress and the US Constitution guarantees this right to lie.
In the petition, Bannon, who was charged for failing to comply with a subpoena issued by the corrupt House Committee on January 6, argues unlawful action by the FBI. The Department of Justice has not commented on Bannon’s assertions.
“Lawyers for Stephen K. Bannon, who was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress late last month, filed a motion for a new trial on Friday, arguing that the judge misinterpreted the law and wrongly prevented Bannon from calling members of Congress as witnesses,” Breitbart news’ Joel Pollak reported.
As defense attorney David Schoen explained to Breitbart News in early July, the court adopted a restrictive definition of the “willfulness” threshold, concluding that Bannon may be convicted even if he followed his attorneys’ recommendations. Pollak wrote.
The motion for a new trial discusses the “willfulness” issue once more and states:
“Mr. Bannon was barred from putting on any evidence or argument that he never believed he was doing anything unlawful; and indeed, understood and believed that he responded to the subpoena in the only way the law permitted, once executive privilege was invoked. How to respond to a congressional subpoena, let alone when executive privilege is invoked, certainly is not an intuitive process; but Mr. Bannon was prohibited from putting on evidence or argument that he relied on his experienced lawyer’s direction that the law prohibited him from complying with the subpoena.”
In a supplemental brief, Bannon’s counsel argues that the court improperly refused to allow Bannon to call witnesses in his own defense, including the members of Congress who claimed the authority to issue the subpoena. Instead, the January 6 Committee sent staff members who were allowed to decide what evidence they would provide or withhold under the protection of the Speech and Debate Clause.
“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place,” states the US Constitution regarding the Speech and Debate Clause, which Trump’s opponents have interpreted to mean that they can lie.
More on this story via The Republic Brief:
According to MTSU:
The speech and debate clause, which appears in Article 1, section 6 of the US Constitution, was written before the First Amendment and had a more limited scope.
The clause, whose inclusion reflected the development of an independent Parliament in England, states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It follows a provision, now largely moot, that prevents the arrest, for civil cases, of members traveling to or from sessions of Congress. CONTINUE READING…