"Today they were supposed to complete jury selection and move on to trial," Frei began, "but what happened this morning where they call a 'motion in limine' to discuss the admissibility of evidence that the prosecution wanted to admit."
Frei explained that the evidence in question was correspondence between the January 6 Committee and Bannon's attorneys relating to the subpoena asking him to testify and produce documents.
The defense argued that the evidence should not be allowed because it "directly speaks to the very defense that Bannon himself is precluded from raising," namely claiming executive privilege or attacking the legitimacy of the Committee.
Frei pointed out that it was the prosecution who petitioned the court to preclude Bannon from being able to use the aforementioned defenses in the first place, making their request to include the correspondences as evidence all the more questionable.
According to those in the courtroom, the judge was "not too impressed with the prosecution," which led the defense to ask that the trial be postponed yet again.
The judge replied by saying he would delay proceedings until the prosecution and defense "figure it out."
Frei explained that the two sides did eventually come to an agreement, and the aforementioned correspondences will be included as evidence. This, in turn, appears to give Bannon the ability to raise executive privilege.
Following the resolution of the evidence issue, the court returned to the jury selection process, whittling it down to twelve jurors and two alternates, of whom nine are men and five are women.
In the afternoon, the trial got underway with opening statements from each side.
The prosecution argued that Bannon was given a subpoena, failed to show up, and should thus be found guilty.
The defense, in turn, argued that the issue of Bannon's executive privilege made the situation more complex and that he had no intention of breaking the law.
Frei added that the defense also argued that the trial is "pure politics," but noted that it was a "double-edged sword."
"Raise the argument to the jury that this is pure politics," he said, " and the jury might say 'yeah this is pure politics, and that's why we're gonna find Bannon guilty."
Following the opening statements, January 6 Committee lawyer Kristin Amerling took the stand as the first witness, testifying for the validity of the committee and its legislative objectives. She continuously referred to January 6 as the darkest day in America, citing the death of police officers as a result of violence from the crowd.
Frei detailed the deaths of police officers following the attack on the Capitol, pointing out that most of them occurred for reasons unrelated to the events of January 6.
"We have departed from accuracy for narrative," he said of Amerling's testimony.
"The importance of this trial is going to be whether or not one continues to view the prosecutorial system as one that pursues justice, or one that pursues politics."
On Tuesday, Frei was featured in an article in Newsweek for his reporting on the trial, wherein he was described as a "right-wing" legal analyst and YouTuber.
"If being accurate makes me right-wing," he said, "I consider it a compliment."
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month