Steve Bannon requests judge ask jurors if they saw damning footage of him at J6 Committee hearinghttps://t.co/z72fxFswdf— Raw Story (@RawStory) July 22, 2022
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?
The House committee wanted to know about Bannon's presence at the Willard Hotel before the Capitol attack & Bannon's statement that "all hell" is going to break loose. "This document is not hard to understand," Gaston says of the subpoena. It tells him what to do and when. 8/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
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.
Back from the hushed conversation, Bannon lawyer Evan Corcoran is now showing documents and trying to cast doubt on whether Bennie Thompson's signature is "legit" on correspondence. The government objects & they're in sidebar with judge again. 22/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
I'm pretty sure that's now what came out in Ameling's testimony, but I only have Twitter for that record.
Bannon lawyer Evan Corcoran says the dates in the congressional subpoena were "placeholders" and he says witness Kristin Amerling "rushed to judgment." She filled out subpoena proof of service before Bannon's lawyer was served, he says. 25/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
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?
"Make no mistake, I'm not against book clubs," defense lawyer Corcoran says. But he says Amerling was downplaying that connection to a prosecutor. "The thing about bias is that sometimes people become blind to it," he adds. 28/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
I always like experienced trial lawyer commentary that agrees with my own:
The defense wants to make this case "hard, difficult, confusing," says prosecutor Amanda Vaughn. "It's as simple as it seems. Your eyes aren't deceiving you about what is in black and white on that paper" subpoena. 33/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
This does not strike me as an optimal defense https://t.co/iCpl9vxhJo— YesterdayIsAHardWordForHat (@Popehat) July 22, 2022
Just waiting for it to go to the jury now. Who probably don't want to come back on Monday.
"That sudden decision to comply is nothing but a ploy but it's not even a good one" bc the Bannon offer included testimony to the committee but forgot to include documents, Vaughn says. 35/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022
Clean up on aisle 6! Bring the sand buckets, there's a lot of blood.
The defense wants to talk about electronic signatures, proof of service and what human picked a date on a subpoena because, in essence, they've got nothing else, Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn says. "Why are we talking about book club?" 36/x— Carrie Johnson (@johnson_carrie) July 22, 2022