Before Steve Bannontrial, where he was convicted in two counts of contempt of Congresshe tried to use a “lawyer’s advice” defense, arguing that his lawyer advised him that he could essentially ignore the Jan. 6 House committee subpoenas because Donald Trump would invoke executive privilege.
This lawyer was Roberto Costellowho has become best known lately as the only true defense witness in the Trump case silent money trial.
However, Bannon’s confidence in Costello’s advice was never what most of us would consider reasonably justified. On the one hand, Trump’s lawyer, Justin Clark, informed Costello in writing that Trump was no, in effect, invoking executive privilege for Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, regarding his testimony. Clark also insisted that Trump never advised Bannon to withhold his testimony or documents until the executive privilege issues were resolved.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who presided over the case, initially agreed to suspend Bannon’s four-month sentence because he believed the case presented serious appeals problems. In particular, as Bannon told In a recent report, Nichols noted his disagreement with a 1961 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
According to this opinion, Licavoli v. United States, reliance on an attorney’s advice cannot negate the defendant’s obstinacy with regard to contempt charges. Nichols therefore explained, on the record, that although he had “serious reservations” that Licavoli “is not consistent with modern jurisprudence surrounding the use” of “intentionally,” he was bound by that 1961 ruling.
But in your opinion defend Bannon’s conviction Last month, the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed its precedent and rejected Bannon’s other challenges to his contempt convictions:
It was this view that led Justice Department prosecutors to move to lift the suspension of Bannon’s sentence, which in turn led Nichols to order Bannon to report to prison until July 1st.
This article was originally published in MSNBC.com
