The thing everyone is missing about the Steve Bannon criminal referral
It’s been eighteen days since the January 6th Committee referred Steve Bannon to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. Thus far no indictment has been brought against Bannon, prompting a number of pundits on MSNBC and Twitter to insist that we’re all doomed because Bannon has magically gotten away with it all.
After all, these pundits insist, decades ago the DOJ took just nine days to indict someone who was referred for contempt of Congress. But this simplistic comparison ends up being apples and oranges. Legal expert Teri Kanefield tweeted this: “Bannon does have a defense. It’s a lame one (Trump is exerting executive privilege) but then (speaking as a defense lawyer) even lame defenses can slow things down.”
She’s right. The DOJ can’t just instantly indict and arrest Steve Bannon and expect the charges to stick at trial, without specifically picking apart Bannon’s legal defense in the indictment. Even a “lame” defense, if not properly addressed by the prosecution, can result in acquittal – because it’s on the prosecution to prove guilt to the jury.
By the way, that DOJ indictment for contempt of Congress that came down after just eight days back in 1983? That person ended up being acquitted by a trial jury. So the pundits who are holding it up as an example for why the DOJ should move more quickly against Bannon have chose a particularly bad example. In fact that rushed indictment back in 1983 is Exhibit A of the dangers of rushing a criminal indictment of this kind.
