Friday, July 22, 2022

How You Play The Game

As reported by Politico's Kyle Cheney, Bannon requested that "that there should be some inquiry" to the jurors about whether they watched the Thursday hearings, while going on the say that the jurors should be assured of "the importance of candor and that they will not suffer negative consequences if they acknowledge exposure to the broadcast or its subject."

I'm guessing the judge said "Nah!"  I'm also guessing the DOJ didn't provide much opposition, anyway. 

The Committee subpoenaed Bannon because of those "inflammatory statements."  That's what they wanted to ask him about.  But he put himself above the law, and didn't respond to the subpoena.  So the question is not: did he say those things?, or, were they inflammatory?  The question is:  why didn't he testify when directed to?

UPDATE: No straw, no mud, no water:
This would have to have been raised at trial, and via expert testimony examining the signatures. This is a pure bullshit "taint the jury" move. I'm pretty sure that's now what came out in Ameling's testimony, but I only have Twitter for that record. When you got nuttin'....  Contrariwise, sometimes "bias" blinds you to your legal obligations.  Again, not a winning argument.  But what else did Bannon give him? I always like experienced trial lawyer commentary that agrees with my own: Just waiting for it to go to the jury now. Who probably don't want to come back on Monday. Clean up on aisle 6! Bring the sand buckets, there's a lot of blood.

No comments:

Post a Comment