SOMETHING TO SAY, WE’LL SEE THAT
IN JUST MOMENTS.
THANKS, DAVID.
WITH THAT, WE BRING IN ANDY
McCARTHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR AND
A FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AS WELL.
GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US TODAY.
YOUR REACTION TO THIS VERDICT
AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY
AT HOME WHY THEY DECIDED NOT TO
MOUNT A DEFENSE IN THIS COURT
CASE?
>> YEAH, I THINK THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING, MARTHA, THAT
DAVID SPUNT SAID AT THE END WAS,
YOU KNOW, ABOUT A LEGAL
CHALLENGE THAT MAY COME UP ON
APPEAL, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
RARE CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT
DIDN’T HAVE ANY FACTUAL DEFENSE
BUT A LEGAL DEFENSE.
THE PROBLEM IS FOR HIM, THE
JUDGE BASICALLY SAID HE COULDN’T
PRESENT LEGAL DEFENSE TO THE
JURY.
WHAT HE’S ARGUING IS THAT TRUMP
DOES RETAIN EVEN IN HIS POST
PRESIDENCY A QUANTUM, WHICH IS
COURTS HAVEN’T FIXED, OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
HE BELIEVED THAT ON THE BASIS OF
TRUMP’S ASSERTION RELYING ON HIS
OWN COUNSEL, THAT HE DID NOT
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE
SUBPOENAS.
THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE, JUDGE
CARL NICHOLS, BY THE WAY, A
TRUMP APPOINTEE, FOUND THAT THAT
DEFENSE -- FIRST HE DECIDED IT
WAS LEGALLY INVALID.
HE DECIDED IT WAS FACTUALLY
WANTING BECAUSE BANNON COULDN’T
SHOW THAT TRUMP ACTUALLY HAD
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON
HIS BEHALF.
WHETHER HE’S RIGHT OR WRONG, IT
LEFT HIM WITH NO FACTUAL DEFENSE
IN FRONT OF THE JURY.
SO THE JURY WAS CONCERNED THE
CASES, HE GOT TWO SUBPOENAS, HE
KNEW THEY WERE SUBPOENAS AND HE
DIDN’T COMPLY WITH THEM.
THAT’S WHY IT WENT SO QUICKLY.
THERE WASN’T MUCH MORE TO TALK
ABOUT.
>> SO WE EXPECT HE WILL APPEAL.
HIS ATTORNEY HAS SAID THAT.
BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY
OF THIS.
WE REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS A
REPUBLICAN PARTY IN THE HOUSE,
THERE WERE EFFORTS TO BRING ERIC
HOLDER, TO SUBPOENA HIM IN THE
GUN CASE ACROSS THE MEXICAN
BORDER.
SOMEHOW HE GOT AWAY WITH NOT
SHOWING UP.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
>> THE DIFFERENCE THAT THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BACKED UP THE
JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE AND THEY
DIDN’T BACK UP THE DEMOCRATIC --
THE OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DIDN’T INDICT HOLDER FOR NOT
COMPLYING TO REPUBLICAN
CONTROLLED CONGRESS’ SUBPOENA.
SHOCKING AS THAT IS.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT’S NOT JUST --
IT’S NOT JUST THE OBAMA
SITUATION.
WE HAD THE FAST AND FURIOUS
SCANDAL THAT YOU JUST REFERRED
TO, WHICH IS WHERE HOLDER WAS
ACTUALLY THE FIRST ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO EVER BE HELD IN
CONTEMPT.
THERE’S BEEN LOTS OF SCANDALS
OVER THE LAST 40 OR 50 YEARS.
THIS STATUTE, THE CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS THAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT NEVER ENFORCES.
AS DAVID SPUNT SAYS, I DON’T
THINK THERE WAS A CONVICTION ON
THIS SINCE WATERGATE IN 74 AND I
DON’T THINK THEY’VE INDICTED FOR
40 YEARS.
SO BANNON WILL HAVE A CLAIM THAT
THIS WAS SELECTIVE PROSECUTION.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A NORM FOR
ALL OF THE TALK ABOUT
TRUMP-BREAKING NORMS, YOU KNOW,
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS WILL COME
TO REGRET SOME OF THESE
AGGRESSIVE THINGS THAT THEY’VE
DONE.
IN POLITICS, AS WE ALL KNOW,
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
>> Martha: I SPOKE WITH TREY
GOWDY ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY ON
"THE UNTOLD STORY", THE PODCAST.
HE SAID HE FELT THAT BANNON
DIDN’T HAVE GOOD ARGUMENT
BECAUSE HE TALKS ALL THE TIME ON
HIS PODCAST.
HE’S TALKED OPENLY ABOUT THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH
THE PRESIDENT.
THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID
AT THAT TIME.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT
ARGUMENT?
>> I THINK TREY IS RIGHT IN THE
SENSE THAT BANNON WOULD HAVE A
BATTER ARGUMENT ABOUT POTENTIAL
PREJUDICE TO THE JURY AND THIS
PUBLICITY AND HE DIDN’T GET A
FAIR TRIAL.
IT’S ODD THAT JUDGE NICHOLS
DECIDED TO FORGE AHEAD WITH THIS
TRIAL EVEN AS THE JANUARY 6th
COMMITTEE WAS GOING FORWARD WITH
ITS BIG PRIME TIME HEARING AND
ALL THAT STUFF LAST NIGHT.
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MUCH
BETTER SHAPE, I THINK, MARTHA,
MAKING THAT ARGUMENT IF HE
DIDN’T LEAVE THE COURTHOUSE AT
THE END OF A TRIAL DAY AND GO
OUT TO THE STEPS AND HAVE A
PRESS CONFERENCE, IN WHICH HE
RIPS THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE.
SO THE APPELLATE COURTS WILL
SAY, IF YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN
ABOUT PEOPLE NOT INFLUENCING OR
TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE JURY
OUTSIDE THE TRIAL, THEN YOU
CAN’T INFLUENCE THE JURY OUTSIDE
THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE TRIAL.
HE DOESN’T HAVE CLEAN HANDS ON
THAT ONE.
>> YEAH, THE SENTENCING IS
OCTOBER 21 AT 3:00 P.M.
I KNOW THERE’S A LOT OF
DISCUSSION THAT HE -- YOU THINK
HE WILL GET ANY JAIL TIME?
I WONDER IF HE WILL OR WON’T
MAKE COMMENTS THIS AFTERNOON
WITH THAT HANGING OVER HIS HEAD
AT THIS POINT?
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK HE HAS TO
GET 30 DAYS UNDER THE STATUTE.
THERE’S TWO COUNTS.
THEY HAVE A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS.
THEY CAN RUN TOGETHER.