On Wednesday, the trial of Steve Bannon continued, and the prosecution rested its case. The former Trump chief strategist faces charges of contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas issued by the January 6 Committee.
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."
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
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
