Doj rested just 2 witnesses, Brannon defence up tomorrow morning. Tune in tomorrow, “it will be wild”.
The prosecution rests.
Link to Glenn Kirschner Tweet:
Prosecution: “Look, jury, he was subpoenaed to show up, and he didn’t do it. There you go.”
On the counter, trying to know everything - public policy, scientific research, news, how to whittle, how to cook well, etc. - and at such a depth that it’s actually, verifiably accurate is pretty well impossible. Likewise, much of that has very little practical importance on your life. If a new drug is discovered, your doctor will know and let you know, if it’s relevant to you; if a new type of dinosaur is discovered…well, what does that really matter? Focusing on the things that are actually relevant to your life, and giving them the amount of attention that they truly merit, is a fairly reasonable approach. I could see someone who would be a good juror, who is deeply knowledgeable and honest, and fairly unaware of the scandals of the moment. And that person is someone who relishes having a proper and true understanding of things - an ideal candidate for a jury.
This isn’t to say that this is the average juror; just that keeping current events at a distance isn’t a clear negative when it comes to your qualifications for judging a trial.
For that matter, I would fail a test on the Kardassians. I might know more about music from 400 years ago than I know about anything since written since about the year 2000.
Some of Bannon’s Gettr posts were admitted into evidence.
One reads, “Steve Bannon tells the January 6th Select Committee that he will NOT comply with their subpoena,” and links to his War Room podcast.
That’s going to make the defense that Bannon thought he was negotiating dates with the J6 committee a little hard to believe.
The same is true of politicians. They can’t possibly know enough to make an informed choice on bills. No wonder they can be influenced so easily.
In theory, that’s the purpose of the committees.
And that quote shows that he doesn’t understand juries.
Juries aren’t private investigators who are supposed to bring their own theories of the crime to the decision-making process.
They’re meant to not have any preconceived opinions. They’re decision-makers, not investigators. The police have already done the investigation; the prosecution and the defence have their witnesses lined up.
The jury’s task is to come to it with an open mind, listen to both sides, and to the judge, and then make a decision based on the evidence as presented to them, and based on the instructions on the law from the judge.
That’s not the same as being stupid or low-information. Mrs Piper used to be a criminal trial lawyer. She put forward some complex cases to juries. She used to say that the last thing she wanted was dumb jurors. You don’t want dumb people deciding a complex case.
Quick, how long did they hold Bajor? 
Okay, I would like to blame this on auto correct, but I just misspelled Kardashians. The ones from Calabasas not the ones from beyond the neutral zone.
They still do, it’s all an Obsidian Order plot!
Bannon’s team has announced that they will not put on a defense. We might get closing arguments today.
Bannon’s threats of, “Going medieval,” and making this the, “Misdemeanor from hell,” turn out to be pretty empty.
Since this is federal court, after he’s found guilty, sentencing likely won’t happen immediately. There’s a “pre sentence investigation” - where Bannon is interviewed by a probation officer and then scored on a scoresheet, based on various factors relating to the crime and his personal circumstances - and then the court will have a sentencing hearing.
Jury dismissed for the day. Closing arguments and the start of deliberations tomorrow (Friday).
the usual, nothing to say in court. lots to say, in the third person, outside of court.
I’m curious how they spent the whole day if the defense had no defense argument and they didn’t have a closing argument? Was it just the whole however long (half hour?) seating & opening the court rigamarole just to have the defense attorney get up, say, “We have no defense, your honor”, the judge tells everyone to go away, and that was it?
It seems like the judge should have some way of telling the jury that information, without having to waste all the time on redundant formalities.
there was a lot of stuff between the lawyers and the judge out of the view of the jury.
Likely scenario: The defense rests. The judge gives the jurors the usual instructions (“Don’t read/watch/listen to anything in the media about the case, don’t do your own Internet research, don’t discuss the case with anyone,” etc.). Then the lawyers conference with the judge about the details of the jury instructions, how long each side will have for argument and rebuttal. The attorneys go off to polish their closing arguments; the judge and law clerks finalize the instructions; everybody passes the time till court opening tomorrow as seems useful for them.
Yup. Besides haggling over the jury instructions the judge was no doubt dealing with some motions from the attorneys. Probably the defense would be offering a motion for dismissal of the charges, even knowing it’s doomed; it’s de rigueur at this stage of the game, sets up one of the legal avenues for the inevitable appeal of a guilty verdict.