Steve Bannon is running out of time to report to prison. Now he's asking the Supreme Court to delay his sentence on a contempt charge from nearly two years ago for not complying with a subpoena from the House committee on January 6th. Let's get perspective from former attorney for Steve Bannon, David Schoen. David, thank you so much for joining us. So Bannon's lawyers claim that he's being forced to serve his prison sentence now as a way to prevent him from serving as an adviser in the ongoing national campaign. The thing is, if he'd just gone to prison when he was sentenced, he would be out by now. So why is he still fighting this? Well, first of all, that's the weakest argument there is. And that's one of the reasons I quit the case. That's not a legal argument to be made, but there is a strong legal argument to be made for bail, and I think they'll get it. Frankly, I think the next step is going to as you know, the panel last night, the Court of Appeals panel for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision, denied his application for bail. The dissenting judge, Judge Walker, said basically what Judge Nichols had said to me in the district court, that is that. But Judge Nichols was much stronger is that that the question for bail is whether it's a close question that could well be decided the other way. The panel in this case didn't have the authority to overrule the 1961 case on the definition of what really in the criminal context, the on bond court for the circuit would, the Supreme Court would. And the point is that it should have a chance to have those courts review that before going to prison. If he were to go to prison and serve his entire sentence before this important legal issue is heard. I personally think the issue is a slam dunk. I think there are 8 to 9 votes after a 2019 case unknowingly. I think that there are 8 to 9 votes to reverse the conviction in this case. Judge Nichols himself had tried the case, said he thinks the conviction is likely to be reversed. Let's go step by step into some of the substance there, because, you know, there was another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, who is also convicted for defying the January six committee. His lawyers fought all the way to the Supreme Court to delay his sentence. His requests were ultimately rejected, though. So, fundamentally, what's the difference between Navarro and Bannon? You ask a very good question and another reason that I quit. What happened here is, by the way, is about a week and a half ago, Bannon asked me if he could have another lawyer call me to help me with the briefing pre-hearing. I said, Sure. Instead, that lawyer filed a ridiculous motion for bail pending appeal, the one that was denied, didn't know anything about the case, wasn't qualified for it. I don't work with lawyers under those circumstances, so I quit. But I sent a bunch of memos since, and now the one before the Supreme Court encompass is the arguments I made in the district court, although it leaves out a number of other questions. I mean, one of the differences is and in the original motion, I compared it to Navarro Navarro case, it's completely different, didn't have executive privilege, didn't have the advice of counsel, which is goes directly to the willfully issue. But remember, this is going now to the associate justice for the D.C. Circuit, just Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts denied Navarro's bail request. Nothing on the merits yet. They'll request because he found that he had waived his arguments for bail. Unfortunately, I raised all of the arguments for bail in this case, and Judge Nichols found at least three bases for bail. He ultimately, after letting him out for a year and eight months, revoked that at the government's request. Because of his authority, he doesn't have the authority to overrule the panel. But now it's a different question in different posture. So Navarro waived his arguments for bail. And in that order, Chief Justice Roberts said nothing should be taken to imply any decision about the merits of the case. On the merits of the case, Bannon will win. I, I take your point about Navarro waiving his right to bailed. And we could talk about executive privilege, because it surprises me that that you would try to argue that Steve Bannon had executive privilege. At least Navarro was still part of the administration at the time. Nevertheless, there is something else that I want to get your thoughts on, because Steve Bannon made comments recently about former FBI Director Andrew McCabe. I want to play for you Bannon's comments on his podcast and then McCabe's response to our colleague, Anderson Cooper. Let's get your reaction on the other side of this. Why is Andrew McCabe, Mr. Tough Guy, Mr. FBI Tough guy? Why is he wet himself? Why is he wet himself on national TV? He's damn scared because he understands the end is near. Get your passport. Get the hell out of the country, because, hey, we're coming. We're a grab the long arm of the law Going to grab you back, bro. If we will hunt you down and bring you back and you will stand accountable before the American people. I know what to expect. It's not about me. I'll be fine. It's about people who will be experiencing this for the first time and more importantly, their families. You know, like I talk to former officials and everyone is in the same place like we are still committed to this country and seeing this through, we still have faith in the systems that are that are built to protect the rights of every American. But that's a hard thing to explain to your family when they're thinking, you know, basically they don't want to have to live in this kind of fear and terror for another four years. David, what's your reaction to all of that? Well, you know, I don't talk in those kinds of terms. I don't indulge that kind of rhetoric giving him the benefit of the doubt. What he means is there's a school of thought that a number of FBI officials played unfairly during the Trump administration and that they're going to be held accountable under the law eventually, I would assume. One last point for me at least. You are you mentioned before you surprised about executive privilege. You should ask Mr. Uriarte, the deputy attorney general, about supporting Mr. Galan's invocation of executive privilege. Her was not a member of the executive branch as a 27. Opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. Executive privilege extends to the people never employed in the executive branch, If the President so invokes or a former president. I guess there's also a question about whether Trump's actions leading up to January six were part of an official act, and that's something that the Supreme Court has not necessarily weighed in on. Nevertheless, David Schoen, we appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us. Thank you very much.
