Today in court, there was a heated exchange between Steve Bannon's attorney, Dave Schoen, and Judge Carl Nichols. After the judge ordered Bannon to report to prison next month, Schoen objected, citing that the decision goes against previous statements made in the case. Judge Nichols had previously found substantial questions for appeal and had indicated that Bannon should not serve time during the appeals process. Schoen argued that the definition of 'willfully' used in the case has evolved over the years and does not align with the traditional interpretation.
Schoen also clarified that former President Trump did invoke executive privilege in the case, contrary to some reports. He emphasized that Bannon's actions were based on legal advice and that the court's refusal to consider this aspect was a significant flaw in the trial.
Regarding the appeal process, Schoen outlined two key arguments he plans to present to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Firstly, he will challenge the outdated definition of 'willfully' used in the case and argue that Bannon acted in accordance with legal advice. Secondly, he will raise concerns about the separation of powers issue arising from Congress's handling of executive privilege claims.
Despite Bannon's claims of a broader attack on Trump supporters, Schoen maintained that the focus should be on the legal aspects of the case. He criticized the judge's decision to send Bannon to prison before the appeals process concludes, highlighting the need for equal treatment under the law.
While Judge Nichols stands by the precedent set in the Likavoli case, Schoen remains adamant that the evolving interpretation of 'willfully' and the constitutional implications of executive privilege warrant a different outcome. The case is poised to proceed to higher courts for further review and potential reconsideration of Bannon's prison sentence.
