Former President Donald Trump's defense lawyer during his second impeachment trial and attorney for Steve Bannon recently shared his perspective on the ongoing trial. He highlighted the importance of presenting a focused closing statement, as the judge has stressed the need for a focused approach. The lawyer emphasized that Trump's defense should emphasize that he did not intend any harm and that he did not defame the individual involved in the case.
However, he expressed concern about a key issue that could arise during the appeal process. The judge's ruling concerning the specific rape claim, which was not proven, could potentially be problematic. The lawyer argued that the judge's decision to bar Trump from arguing that he did not commit rape and therefore was not defaming the individual could be seen as a tough call. He raised the point that the jury had only been asked to consider the issue of sexual assault, not rape. This ruling, in his eyes, stands as a major issue in the case.
In response to the lawyer's concerns, the interviewer noted that the judge had based his decision on the Department of Justice's expanded definition of rape and the American Psychological Association's guidelines. The interviewer also raised issues with Trump's legal representation during the trial. The lawyer acknowledged that many people had concerns about their approach but believed that given the judge's rulings, their options were limited. He also proposed an alternative strategy, suggesting that the lawyer could have outlined Trump's potential testimony and how it would be affected by the court's limitations, thereby creating a record for the appeal.
Regarding the cross-examination of witnesses during the trial, the lawyer expressed surprise at the limited opportunities taken by Trump's legal team. He believed they missed an opportunity to thoroughly examine the opposing side by not scrutinizing the testimony point by point. Despite his reservations about the defense's approach, he highlighted the public's perception of the trial as unfair and how it might affect Trump's popularity.
The conversation then shifted to another high-profile case involving Peter Navarro, a former Trump advisor. Navarro was recently sentenced to four months in jail for contempt of Congress due to repeatedly ignoring subpoenas from the House January 6th Committee. The lawyer drew a parallel between this case and Steve Bannon's case, in which the former advisor was also convicted on contempt charges. He highlighted the importance of the defense proving when, where, and how executive privilege was invoked. Additionally, he mentioned that Bannon's defense had relied on the advice of counsel, which Navarro did not have as a defense. The lawyer expressed confidence in Bannon's appeal, noting that a judge in his case believed his conviction would be overturned due to a mistaken interpretation of previous law.
The discussion concluded with the observation that the scope of executive privilege would be closely examined in both Bannon's and Navarro's cases, considering Judge Metta's statement that executive privilege is not a 'magical incantation' or a means to avoid legal consequences.
Overall, the lawyer shared his thoughts on Trump's impeachment trial, the legal strategies employed, and the intricacies of contempt of Congress cases involving Trump associates.
