Recently Gregg Jarrett shared his thoughts and stated that previous White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s guilty judgment could be reversed.
A patron from Fox News and an expert legal adviser, Gregg Jarrett, discussed the facts and figures concerning Bannon’s case and the possible consequences in the article he posted on the website. Jarrett is confident that Bannon’s sentence could get overturned as Bannon has “strong legal grounds”.
Back in October this year, Bannon was sent to jail for 120 days as he failed to act accordingly to a congressional subpoena from the House Democrat-led Jan. 6 investigation committee.
In the aforementioned article, Jarrett claims that an unlawfully petitioned “willful” confrontation of a subpoena is declared on 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.”
“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.
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.
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.
It is already in record Bannon’s defense team has previously argued as well that the trial was unfair. The jury made a decision on only two witness testimonies. This makes it highly likely for the appeal to succeed and the conviction to be tossed out if the United States law is to be upheld and restore its honor.