Steve Bannon Is Having His Best Life Ever?

Steve Bannon comes unhinged on podcast after surrender to FBI: 'This is the war that they've brought to us!' https://t.co/MBrIjKltnU

— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 16, 2021

Go to the article, listen to the rant from his podcast. Bannon is about as inspirational as a sponge. And his lawyer?  This is his idea of an "equal protection" defense:

"I want to say this, I think for my duty of the court, I ordinarily don't comment on pending cases. In this case, the attorney general decided to put out a press release saying this case reflects the principles of equal justice under the law. it absolutely does not," he continued. " I'm sure you're aware that since 2008, four people have been cited for contempt by the house; not one of them was ever prosecuted criminally, and that goes across the board in different administrations. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolton. The idea this is a crime is absolutely outrageous."

That's not a legal defense. Short answer:  change the facts, change the outcome. And the insurrection at the Capitol really does change the facts.  But is Schoen going for jury nullfication of the statute?

"Are you going to request a trial by jury or -- are you going to request a trial by jury or a judge?" Keilar asked.

"I don't know. I don't know that yet," Schoen replied with a pained smile.

What's even less clear is why Schoen went to the press in the first place.  This seems to be his defense for his client, whom he says he's just met, hasn't really counseled, and who hasn't told him much about Bannon's involvement in the matters the committee wants information about:

"Here's the problem," he explained after they talked over each other. "Here's the problem. This comes up regularly when privilege is at issue in depositions. Here, Mr. Bannon -- there could be questions asked that have to do with privileged areas and not privileged areas. If he showed up and started answering questions, privilege could be violated. All he asked was if he were to show up, could a representative of the purported privilege holder be present to invoke privilege on a question by question basis. He was told the committee rules do not permit that, and so he wasn't allowed to do that. So you can't just show up and then take a chance that privilege things could come up but the privilege holder can't be there and that's simply unfair."

The problem with that argument is that Trump hasn't invoked executive privilege as to Bannon (Schoen implies Trump invoked double super secret executive privilege, but the invocation has to come from Trump, not Bannon, so doing it in secret is the same as not doing it at all).  Second problem:  can Trump invoke executive privilege?  That's not for Bannon to say.  He can't sue the committee claiming he's protecting Trump's executive privilege; the privilege is only for Trump to assert.  Bannon can sing like a bird unless Trump objects in court with an action for declaratory judgment blocking Bannon from testifying.

In short:  Bannon doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Trump may have one; but he hasn't asserted it.  Privilege can only be asserted by the holder of the privilege, as Trump did by suing the National Archives.

If this is the best thing that's ever happened to Steve Bannon, he's had a very sad life.