Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explains why Steve Bannon’s conviction for two counts of contempt of Congress should be reversed
During an interview on The Record with Greta Van Susteren, distinguished professor and legal mind Alan Dershowitz reveals his insight on the Steve Bannon conviction.
Steve Bannon, a former top aide to President Trump, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress last week in what many know to have been a sham trial.
The judge presiding over the trial threw out every single avenue of defense which Bannon’s team had, including the legitimate argument that he had executive privilege, and sided unilaterally with the crooked January 6th Committee.
However, Professor Dershowitz, believes that there is a high probability that the conviction will be reversed in the future.
Professor Dershowitz on the conviction of Steve Bannon:
"I think that’s very likely that this conviction will be reversed at some point." pic.twitter.com/6fGfOdtIr9
— Woj 🇵🇱 (@Woj_Pawelczyk) July 23, 2022
When asked about the conviction of Steve Bannon for the two misdemeanors, Dershowitz described it as “entirely predictable and entirely in violation of the Constitution.”
“The only provision of the Constitution, which appears basically twice, is trial by jury in front of a fair jury. Number one, he didn’t have a fair jury. Number two, the judge took his defenses away from him. The judge denied him a jury trial. They wouldn’t allow him to put on evidence that he believed that there was an executive privilege involved and that he wanted judicial determination before he violated the executive privilege. That issue could not be presented to the jury. The prediction was a foregone conclusion.”
Dershowitz also states that reversal is only a matter of whether an appellate court or the US Supreme Court makes the decision, stating that he “thinks it is very likely that this conviction will be reversed at some point.”
The jury was 94% Democrat, and so for an outspoken Trump ally to be tried before them was highly unfair to begin with. The judge’s ruling on presenting evidence was also highly prejudiced. In a fair and legitimate world, there is no way that Bannon should have been convicted and no way that the conviction is not reversed.
This is doubly true when we look at the case of jury nullification in which the Democrat jurors let off crooked Hillary lawyer Michael Sussmann despite a mountain of evidence that he lied to the FBI.
Democrat jurors are not interested in justice in these high profile cases, nor are Democrat judges.