The Week Ahead

On Sunday morning, Trump told Fox and Friends, "I didn't say 'lock her up,'"

Aaron Rupert was quick to dig up old campaign footage of Trump in Georgia doing exactly that.

Trump’s full interview on Fox appears to have been heavily edited, leaving many wondering what was going on. Acyn, a senior digital editor at MeidasTouch Network, posted on X that “Trump’s interview with Fox and Friends is heavily edited for some reason. Abrupt cuts while he’s still talking. Very curious what they edited out.”

With a convicted felon now on the campaign trail for the American presidency, Peter Baker from the New York Times tweeted, “What would it mean to have a criminal president? If Trump wins, he will have survived two impeachments, four indictments, civil judgments for sexual abuse and fraud and a felony conviction. Given that, it's hard to imagine what institutional deterrents could discourage abuses.” Baker’s full piece is here.

That’s where we start the week, with an increasingly desperate felon, still the apparent Republican nominee for president, obviously lying on national television with no one fact-checking him in real-time. After the last two months, it’s strange not to be looking ahead to another week of trial. It’s a little surprising but deeply reassuring that the rule of law worked and the jury rendered a verdict. I think we’re all both hopeful and worried about what the future holds for us.

Steve Bannon

Why isn’t Bannon in prison to serve his sentence following the Court of Appeals decision to affirm his conviction? He’s been close before, but then, nothing. Peter Navarro, who was convicted and sentenced for the same crime, has been in custody and is almost done serving his sentence at FCI Miami

Navarro did not receive a bond to stay out of custody while appealing. Bannon did, but he should not have. The legal standard is that a defendant must have a substantial issue that it’s likely they will prevail upon. Bannon did not—you recall he failed to show up to testify or turn over any documents at all pursuant to congressional subpoenas. While Bannon gives media interviews and continues to host his podcast, Peter Navarro is in prison, where Bannon should be too.

Judge Carl Nichols, who oversaw the proceedings against Bannon and granted that appeals bond, happens to be a Trump appointee who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. He is the only judge on the District Court in the District of Columbia who ruled the government couldn’t use the obstruction statute against January 6 participants, leading to the case currently pending in front of the Supreme Court. Following the decision by a unanimous panel of the D.C. Circuit on May 10, 2024, affirming Bannon’s conviction, the government asked Judge Nichols to order Bannon into custody. That should have been routine.

It was not. The Judge suggested, in an order asking for a response from Bannon, that he might not have the authority to enter the order despite the Court of Appeals decision. Then, he ruled that was the case and declined to enter the order without hearing again from the government.

On May 21, the government again asked the Judge to revoke the appeal bond and send Bannon to prison, pointing out in a short filing that the Judge had the authority to do it and that Bannon had failed to point to any authority to the contrary. Now, Judge Nichols has set a hearing for this Thursday at 11:30 a.m. to determine whether to send Bannon to prison.

Even if Judge Nichols thought Bannon had a real issue on appeal at one point, the appellate court’s decision proved him wrong. It’s time for Bannon to go to prison. The Court of Appeals decision was, as the government characterized it, “full-throated,” leaving virtually no room to believe the Court of Appeals would hear the case en banc and reverse. This is not the kind of case the Supreme Court takes—there is no split in the Circuits on the issue Bannon raised about his state of mind. The case is over, and Bannon belongs in prison. The government directed the court to the language in the statute that says it “shall” take the defendant into custody.

Will Bannon finally begin his sentence, or will the Judge come up with more excuses? The government’s motion suggests it’s out of patience. This could become a case for mandamus. We’ll watch this one with interest.

Hunter Biden Trial

Hunter Biden’s trial starts in federal court in Delaware on Monday. He was charged with lying on an ATF form when he bought a gun in 2018. That form requires a purchaser to sign under oath, indicating they are not a user of or addicted to illegal drugs. Biden was a self-acknowledged addict.

The details that led to the case involve Biden’s deceased brother Beau’s widow, Hallie Biden, with whom Hunter was having a relationship at the time. Hallie Biden found the gun Hunter had purchased and threw it away. It was subsequently recovered by the police from a man who had found it in the garbage bin she had tossed it into near a local store. Prosecutors have included Hallie Biden, as well as Hunter Biden’s first wife Kathleen, on a lengthy witness list.

Hunter Biden also faces federal tax charges in California.

Any argument by Donald Trump that Joe Biden has weaponized the criminal justice system should end right here. The prosecutor is a former Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney who was permitted to remain in place specifically for purposes of determining whether these cases should be indicted.

Trump Presentence Investigation?

Before Donald Trump left court as a convicted felon, Justice Merchan told his lawyer to expect communication from the clerk of court about scheduling Trump’s probation interview. Before sentencing, the probation department conducts a presentence interview with a convicted defendant so they can write a presentence report to aid the judge’s decision. That report is under seal, so we will not see what, if any, information Trump divulges to his probation officer and what the final report recommends.

There were some reports Trump skipped the requirement that he report to his probation officer before leaving the courthouse after the verdict, but they are not correct. His date is coming though. This is yet another step towards accountability and justice.

Attorney General Merrick Garland in the House

On Tuesday, Merrick Garland will appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a “routine” oversight hearing that is likely to be anything but. That’s in part because Matthew Colangelo, one of the key prosecutors on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s team that convicted Trump, went to that office from the Justice Department.

It’s not unusual for prosecutors to move around, and when a new district attorney is elected, they often gather in trusted friends to work with them. Colangelo and Bragg had previously worked together for New York Attorney General Letitia James. Colangelo went to work for Bragg a couple of months ahead of the Trump indictment. Republicans have been trying to insinuate something sinister ever since—that Colangelo, who had previously worked in the office of the Associate Attorney General, the number three ranking official at DOJ, was the link that proved Joe Biden was directing the Trump prosecution.

Of course, that’s entirely ridiculous. Good prosecutors—and Colangelo, whom I’ve known and worked with for years, is one of them—don’t talk with friends and former bosses about their cases. Folks who have followed along will remember that it was Donald Trump who broke the news that he was about to be indicted in Manhattan.

House Republicans are billing the hearing as one to “examine how the DOJ has become politicized and weaponized under the leadership of Attorney General Merrick Garland.” Garland is expected to undergo rigorous questioning from House Republicans about what he knew, when he knew it, and when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife style questions about Joe Biden’s role in directing the prosecution. The Committee is chaired by Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who attended law school at Capital University in Columbus and has never taken the bar exam. You can watch the hearing live.

Mar-a-Lago

Special counsel Jack Smith has asked Judge Aileen Cannon—again—to bar Trump from making statements that endanger law enforcement in the classified documents case. Trump has been claiming that the FBI was out to assassinate him when it executed the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.

It simply isn’t the case. We discussed Trump’s lies, which put federal law enforcement agents at risk, and Smith’s motion, which asks the Judge to modify Trump’s conditions of pre-trial release to prohibit him from continuing to make these remarks, last week if you want a refresher.

Judge Cannon denied the request on a technicality. Smith refiled the motion and Sunday, and Judge Cannon entered a paperless order directing Trump to file a response on or before June 14 and the government to reply by June 21—they won’t take that long.

No one will ever accuse her of dealing with matters in an expeditious fashion. But she plays a dangerous and disingenuous game here. Someone could get hurt in the intervening three weeks.

Finally

On Friday, Civil Discourse turns two. We’ve survived a midterm election, four indictments, and the first criminal trial of a former president in our time together. The Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the rights Americans have by making it more difficult to vote and ending federal protection for abortion. But we’re still here as a country, and I really appreciate that you’re here with me as we gear up for the coming election and our mission: keeping the Republic. Thank you to everyone who is already a subscriber to the newsletter. If you aren’t, I hope you’ll sign up to celebrate the anniversary.

Hopefully, the news gods will give us a little break on Friday, and we can have some fun. Help a friend register to vote and make plans to give our little endeavor here a toast! There will be mugs, tee shirts and a few other things—everything should be ready later on this week and you’ll be the first to know if you’re subscribed.

We’re in this together,

Joyce