VIVA FREI: Prosecution rests its case in Bannon trial - DAY 3 REPORT

In the third episode of an exclusive series for The Post Millennial, lawyer and YouTuber Viva Frei broke down everything that took place on day three of the Bannon trial.

"The day started off with a bang, but it was outside of the courtroom," Frei began, explaining that Bannon himself had stood outside the courtroom addressing the media, and claiming that he was the focus of a "political show trial."

Inside the courtroom, the prosecution rested its case, after calling only two witnesses.

Once the first witness, Kristin Amerling, had finished giving her testimony, FBI investigator Stephen Hart took the stand. He had been called upon by the January 6 Committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson, to look into Bannon and press the charges against him.

Amerling testified that it was not up to her as general counsel whether the committee would go after Bannon, saying that while many people gave recommendations, it was ultimately the committee itself that made the final decision.

Hart cited posts made by Bannon on Gettr referencing the subpoena as the basis for his decision to investigate.

Frei questioned why Hart and the FBI decided to prosecute Bannon while not doing anything about Ray Epps, the alleged fed who instructed people on January 6 to enter the Capitol.

He broke down the differences between Bannon and Epps, highlighting how the latter had been at the Capitol on January 6 telling people what to do, while the former is alleged to have said on January 5, "All hells gonna break loose tomorrow."

Before the trial began, the judge ruled, at the request of the prosecution, that Bannon would not be allowed to invoke executive privilege or say anything questioning the legitimacy of the committee.

On Wednesday, however, a letter from former president Donald Trump waiving Bannon's executive privilege and allowing him to testify to the committee was accepted as evidence. The judge's reversal of the aforementioned ruling came after the prosecution was permitted to submit documents that contained communication discussing Bannon's executive privilege.

Frei explained that Bannon presented the letter to the committee last week, urging them to postpone the trial and let him testify, making the case against him "moot."

The committee denied his request, however, given that the letter has now been allowed as evidence, Bannon will be able to argue to the jury that he, at the very least, thought he had executive privilege.

"The actus reus, the act of not complying with the subpoena is there," Frei explained, "but the mens rea, the intent to have not complied, is not there because in the mind of Bannon, either rightly or wrongly ... he thought he could not comply with the subpoena, and he thought he was collaborating, cooperating with the committee ... to testify in a way that would not violate executive privilege."