schoen, david e s q

-=-=

IMPEACH DEF

-=-=

3 ART SAME DAY

President Donald Trump responds to his latest Nobel Peace Prize snub by amplifying an attack that accuses the Norwegian Nobel Committee of disgracing itself by selecting South African human rights lawyer Navi Pillay.

Shortly after Pillay was announced as the 2026 winner for her contributions to international law, Trump reposted a message from his former attorney David Schoen, who had represented him during his second impeachment trial.

"Today the Nobel Committee shamed itself beyond repair and demeaned the once great Nobel Peace Prize by giving it to the UN's Navi Pillay," Schoen wrote.

Schoen called Pillay "an unabashed hater of America and Israel" and accused her of celebrating terrorists and rewarding Hamas, without providing evidence for those allegations.

He also attacked a United Nations commission Pillay chaired, which concluded last year that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Israel has rejected that finding.

"She has no credibility in any normal sphere and has never done a thing to foster peace," Schoen wrote. "Just the opposite."

The attorney then claimed that Trump should have been awarded the prize, giving as reasons his Abraham Accords, his efforts to secure the release of the hostages, and his attempts to end Russia's war in Ukraine.

"President Trump gave us the Abraham Accords, which the world said would be impossible and is now expanding them!" Schoen wrote.

"He brought home the hostages when all seemed hopeless!" he added.

Schoen concluded that Trump's achievements were "the kinds of things the Nobel Peace Prize was intended to recognize and reward[!]"

The attack followed Trump's repeated pleading for his own nomination, arguing that his diplomatic record made him uniquely worthy.

Less than two days before the announcement, Trump said to reporters at the White House that no one in the history of the prize had deserved it more, adding his false claim that he had settled eight wars.

Pillay, who is 85 years old, had earlier held the position of United Nations high commissioner for human rights and that of a judge at both the International Criminal Court and the tribunal which investigated the Rwandan genocide.

The Nobel Committee lauded her many years of work in the promotion of international justice, especially her efforts to secure accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Pillay also seemed to make a joke about Trump's attempt to obtain the honor while celebrating her win with her colleagues in Germany.

"If you clap a little bit more, I may share this prize with Trump," she joked.

The award will officially be presented in Oslo on December 10th.

AN 10 26

-=-=

AN 10 26

Nobel committee makes 'clear reference' to Trump with stunning 'rebuke'

On Friday, in its announcement that the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has gone to Navi Pillay, the Nobel Committee included a criticism aimed at President Donald Trump. This is according to lawyer and international law reporter Amanda Taub, who writes in the New York Times "that the committee sought to emphasize the importance of international law at a moment when it is under threat, in what amounts to an implicit rebuke of President Trump and other world leaders who are increasingly hostile to that system.”

“In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law — national and international — underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts nonviolently,” the committee said in its prize announcement. But today, it continued, the judges on international courts who “guard the thin red line between order and chaos” are “sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked.”

According to Taub, “That was a clear reference to the Trump administration’s attacks on the international legal order. President Trump had previously imposed sanctions on a number of the judges and lawyers at the International Criminal Court over its investigations into actions by Israelis and Americans, and has said that he believes his power is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ not by international law. Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, has vowed to dismantle the court ‘brick by brick,’ if necessary.” Mere hours after the prize was announced, notes Taub, Rubio announced new sanctions on the court, this time targeting the I.C.C. as an institution. “We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate,” he said in a statement.

As Taub explains, “The court, based in the Netherlands, has authority to try war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, though its jurisdiction is limited to the territory and nationals of its member states. The United States is not a member state, but the court could still seek to try U.S. citizens for their actions overseas.” The Trump administration isn’t alone in its opposition to the I.C.C. Russia has tried and sentenced eight I.C.C. judges in absentia for their roles in issuing a warrant for the arrest of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia for his actions in Ukraine.

The prizewinner Pillay doesn’t currently work for the I.C.C., though she was a judge there in the past. But according to Taub, “Her accomplishments over her long career, as well as her more recent work on contentious questions of genocide law, make her an excellent vehicle for the Nobel Committee’s message about the importance of the international legal system.”

Trump has spent years asserting that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the violence committed by his administration. Following the prize announcement, the president shared a post by the lawyer who defended him during his 2021 impeachment, which declared that Pillay is “an unabashed hater of America and Israel” who “has never done a thing to foster peace” before asserting that it should have gone to Trump.

Trump licks his Nobel-snub wounds after Peace Prize ...

The Independent

https://www.the-independent.com › ... › US politics

3 hours ago — ... Pillay, “an unabashed hater of America and Israel” who “has never done a thing to foster peace.” The post, written by David Schoen — who ...Read more

-=-=

an raw 1 23

Appearing on CNN the morning after he had a major falling out with his client before a judge and asked to be allowed to resign from the case, attorney Doug Schoen explained the "irreconcilable" differences he has with his soon-to-be former client Steve Bannon.

Speaking with "CNN This Morning" co-host Kaitlan Collins, Schoen said that his client was not allowing him to present the best possible defense and that he has no choice but to step aside.

As the Associated Press reported, Schoen is representing Bannon in a case where he is charged with money laundering, conspiracy, and fraud related to the “We Build the Wall” fundraising campaign.

AP reported, "Bannon, a conservative rabble-rouser and longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, has until a Feb. 28 hearing to find new counsel, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan said. His current lawyers, David Schoen and John Mitchell, must stay on the case until then, the judge said."

Appearing on CNN, Schoen, said he still talks to his client -- but that he uses another attorney as an intermediary.

"I guess the first question I have for you, is when was the last time that you and Steve Bannon spoke?" host Collins prompted.

"We spoke, we just don't speak about this case," Schoen explained. "I concluded that we had irreconcilable differences about the approach to the case, the defense of the case, the strategy in the case, the resources for the case. So the best policy was not to talk about it anymore. I talked to him through a third-party lawyer. I still represent him in the case in D.C. and I speak to him."

"So you still talk to him about other cases, but when it comes to this border wall case he's facing, you speak through a third-party attorney to talk to Steve Bannon?" Collins pressed.

"Yeah, there's no point any further in discussing issues surrounding this case," he elaborated. "We have very different views of how it should be handled. When I take on a case, I need to be able to handle it in the way I see is appropriate. Frankly, there was a bit of a breakdown in the D.C. trial. I disagreed with the trial strategy in the case. When the trial came, I refused to participate in the examination of witnesses and arguments. I just handled the legal issues in that case, even though I had been hired to be the lead lawyer."

After stating that he needs to follow "...the rules of professional conduct as well," he later added, "I can't go into those details, as I know you know, and Steve Bannon may well be right and I may be wrong. But it's his case, it's his life and he deserves to be able to proceed with a defense he thinks is appropriate."

Watch below or at this link.

an 12 22

MSNBC's Ari Melber offered a blistering assessment of former President Donald Trump's impeachment lawyer's During a two-part segment on Tuesday's edition of "The Beat with Ari Melber," the MSNBC host recalled recent remarks made by Trump lawyer David Shoen.

"Trump's insurrection impeachment lawyer David Shoen insisted that Trump opposed that violence, that Trump's words were merely encouraging those armed fans to engage in peaceful and civic action, not storming the Capitol violently," Melber noted.

The segment then shifted to a clip of Shoen laying out his argument in Trump's defense. "President Trump did not incite the horrific, terrible riots of January 6," Shoen said. "The violence and looting goes against the law and order message he conveyed to every citizen of the United States throughout his presidency, including on January 6. You knew what the President really meant. He meant that the crowd should demand action from members of Congress and support primary challenges to those who don't do what he considered to be right."

Melber quickly pushed back with hard facts refuting Shoen's claims. "Did then President Trump's request boil down to supporting only primary challenges?" Melber asked as he added, "That is not what those now convicted Trump fans believed."

He continued, "They were chanting, the president sent them. It's not what the militias believed. It's not what top Trump aides believed, as they wrote down and admitted plots to overturn the lawful election result, not just support primary candidates in the future. And apparently, it is not what Trump believed."

Melber went on to recall what transpired in the aftermath. "After that trial... After that remark was made, Donald Trump went on to vow pardons for the criminal trespassers and violent criminals, a lawless endorsement of their actual crimes on his apparent behalf. He said if he wins again, he would issue those pardons in the future."

"So whatever one thought or claimed, then, this is the kind of defense that did not age well, especially against the over 150 pages of new evidence released Monday, with more of this January 6 report slated to come out tomorrow," Melber said. "If Trump aides or Trump himself face indictments on this evidence, they'll need a lot more than talk of primary challenges or that he always supported law and order as his fans battered police, and then he vowed to pardon them after they did."

The of the segment features Melber's one-on-one discussion with Shoen. Melber didn't mince words when he lambasted Shoen for his refusal to actually listen to the facts and discuss real evidence.

"When you keep attacking Process and the committee, you seem like you don't want to discuss the evidence," Melber said, adding, "And that makes you look a little bit like some of these were calculator witnesses where nobody wants to discuss what happened. It's all in the open. I'll take a listen. You brought up the big lie. Let's get into that. Rudy Giuliani admitted under oath he did participate with this committee, and he admitted under oath, we're going to get into this tonight that the Dominion machines didn't steal anything, even though he said the opposite. Bill Barr Are, who I think you know is a Republican lawyer and somewhat good standing in the party, said it was all BS."

Watch the videos below or at this link.

10 22 an badash

former top Trump White House advisor turned far-right wing extremist **Steve Bannon** has been sentenced to four months in prison by a federal judge, for contempt of Congress. The former executive chairman of Breitbart News and former board member of the infamous data-analytics firm Cambridge Analytica refused to comply with a valid and legal subpoena from the **U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack**.

“Others must be deterred from committing similar crimes,” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who clerked with Justice Clarence Thomas,said as he passed down the sentence. He also imposed a fine of $6500. The four month sentence is actually two, but to be served concurrently.

The sentence will be delayed to allow Bannon time to appeal, meaning he was not taken into custody and does not have to go to jail immediately. If he chooses to not appeal he is to report to prison on November 15.

Nichols had told the court as he began sentencing, “Mr. Bannon has not provided a single document,” and “has not provided any testimony on any topic.”

“Mr Bannon was a private citizen,” Judge Nichols continued. “Some of the information sought by the subpoena is information under which no conceivable claim of executive privilege could’ve been made.”

“The January 6th committee has every right to investigate what happened that day,” Nichols told Bannon and his attorneys, adding, and “what can be done to prevent similar .. events from happening in the future.”

Prosecutors had asked Judge Nichols to give Bannon the maximum sentence allowed, which would be six months in prison and a fine of $200,000.

Judge Nichols appeared to chastise the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack for not suing Bannon to enforce their subpoena.

CBS News’ Scott Macfarlane was at the D.C. federal courthouse and posted this photo of Bannon.[twt pix]

walking into he courthouse Bannon decreed the Biden administration “illegitimate,” and said it will end on November 8.

“The governemnt further argues that Mr. Bannon has not expressed remorse and has attacked the select committee at every turn. On this point I agree with the government,” Judge Nichols said, according to NBC News’ Daniel Barnes. “He has expressed no remorse for his actions.”

Bannon’s attorney backed up his client’s behavior.

“Quite frankly, Mr. Bannon should make no apology. No American should make an apology for the way Mr. Bannon proceeded in this case,” David Schoen **t**old the court, even after Judge Nichols noted Bannon’s attacks on the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack.

Bannon’s attorneys had asked for probation, which DOJ adamantly, in court documents, contested.

“In my view the statute sets out a mandatory minimum of one month and a mandatory maximum of 12 months,” Judge Nichols said.

J.P. Cooney, a prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s office, defended the request for fining Bannon $200,000 because “that is exactly what the defendant has asked for.”

Barnes reports that “Bannon refused to comply with the probation office’s financial investigation, Cooney says.”

Bannon reportedly also told the prosecutor’s office, “I am willing and able to pay any fine levied against me.”

Prosecutors, arguing for the six month sentence, told Judge Nichols, “This man, the defendant, a man of means, a public figure … chose, hiding behind the fabricated claim of executive privilege and advice of counsel, to thumb his nose” at Congress, according to Politico’s Kyle Cheney.

Bannon had claimed he was exempt from honoring the subpoena from the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, citing executive privilege, which, as the country later learned, Donald Trump had not invoked in Bannon’s case – not that he would have been able to, as only the sitting U.S. President has that authority.

“DOJ says that if Bannon were genuinely concerned about executive privilege, then he would’ve complied with the Jan. 6 committee subpoena as soon as Trump purported to ‘waive’ it over the summer,” Cheney reports. “But that’s not what he did, DOJ says.”

Bannon’s attorney David Schoen repeatedly delivered caustic attacks about the House Select Committee.

CBS News’ Scott Macfarlane noted that Schoen “is quoting the Federalist Papers (James Madison) about separation of powers… talking about ‘tyranny,'” but added: “Bannon had a hard copy of the Financial Times under his arm as he walked toward courtroom (let’s see if that’s something he wants to show off to cameras as he departs).”

He also was caught “quoting Montesquieu,” and repeatedly accused the January 6 Committee of having a “partisan political agenda.”

Schoen repeatedly told Judge Nichols that Bannon was merely acting on his conscience and understanding of the Constitution, and “acting on principle.” Legal experts say that is not a legitimate defense.

Donald Trump pardoned Bannon from federal charges involving conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering surrounding his We Build the Wall fundraising campaign, but he is now facing similar state charges.

ref

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Mr. Bannon has not provided a single document"

"He has not provided any testimony on any topic"

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Nichols is knocking down Bannon's "executive privilege" argument

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Mr Bannon was a private citizen" .... "Some of the information sought by the subpoena is information under which no conceivable claim of executive privilege could've been made"

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge acknowledges some separation of power issues relevant to Bannon's defense have not been rectified by the court

Judge: "Bannon did not completely ignore the subpoena or fail to engage with the committee at all"... judge says it does appear Bannon was following legal advice

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge says it "cuts in Mr. Bannon's favor" that the committee didn't go to court to enforce its subpoena, but sought out prosecution

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge notes Bannon has been compliant with terms of release in case

After noting Bannon's background, Navy service and work on Trump campaign and his podcast

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Others must be deterred from committing similar crimes"

Judge talks about the importance of honoring the authority of Congress

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Carl Nichols sentences Bannon to FOUR MONTHS prison.. $6500 fine

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Technically, it's a pair of 4-month prison sentences that run concurrently (simultaneously)

Four months prison for Bannon

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Nichols says he'll RELEASE Bannon for now... as he appeals.

Judge is agreeing with Bannon argument that the sentence should be delayed until his appeals process is *resolved*

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge will hold off on imposing of sentence if Bannon files appeal promptly ... which Bannon's team has already signaled it will do

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Mr. Bannon has not provided a single document"

"He has not provided any testimony on any topic"

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Nichols is knocking down Bannon's "executive privilege" argument

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Mr Bannon was a private citizen" .... "Some of the information sought by the subpoena is information under which no conceivable claim of executive privilege could've been made"

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge acknowledges some separation of power issues relevant to Bannon's defense have not been rectified by the court

Judge: "Bannon did not completely ignore the subpoena or fail to engage with the committee at all"... judge says it does appear Bannon was following legal advice

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge says it "cuts in Mr. Bannon's favor" that the committee didn't go to court to enforce its subpoena, but sought out prosecution

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge notes Bannon has been compliant with terms of release in case

After noting Bannon's background, Navy service and work on Trump campaign and his podcast

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge: "Others must be deterred from committing similar crimes"

Judge talks about the importance of honoring the authority of Congress

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Carl Nichols sentences Bannon to FOUR MONTHS prison.. $6500 fine

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Technically, it's a pair of 4-month prison sentences that run concurrently (simultaneously)

Four months prison for Bannon

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge Nichols says he'll RELEASE Bannon for now... as he appeals.

Judge is agreeing with Bannon argument that the sentence should be delayed until his appeals process is *resolved*

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Judge will hold off on imposing of sentence if Bannon files appeal promptly ... which Bannon's team has already signaled it will do

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

Bannon will be permitted to "voluntarily surrender" to serve his prison term.

If he doesn't appeal, Bannon will have to report to prison no later than November 15

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

He's walking out of court today. No idea when he'll be reporting to prison, if he appeals as expected

Scott MacFarlane

@MacFarlaneNews

We are waiting for Bannon outside

what does it mean when THIS GUY cuts bannon off at knees? clarence clerk trump judge nichols

bogus trump ltr releSED from exec priv when trump has never asserted and can't now?

judge tossed case, liar said i have no defense left (4 parts all) , judge said yup.

an 7 22

If you are tired of waiting for Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Donald Trump for seditious conspiracy, insurrection, obstruction of Congress, or any other crime involving the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, I have some words of consolation: Steve Bannon’s trial for contempt of Congress has begun. If convicted, he will likely go to jail.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t take pleasure in the prospect of anyone doing time, as our penal institutions are shamelessly overcrowded and do little in the way of rehabilitation or deterrence to lower our outrageously high crime rates. But apart from Trump himself, there might not be any other person more deserving of a stint in the pokey than Bannon, the loud-mouthed propagandist and podcaster who led Trump’s 2016 political campaign to victory, and subsequently served as the disgraced ex-President’s chief strategist and senior counselor for nearly eight months in 2017.

The facts of the case against Bannon are straightforward and, from a legal perspective, devastating.

On September 23, 2021, the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena commanding Bannon to produce documents on October 7 and sit for a sworn deposition on October 14. Bannon defied both requests.

On October 20, the committee voted to hold Bannon in contempt. Three days later, the full House, with the support of nine Republicans and every Democrat, passed a contempt resolution against Bannon and forwarded a request for prosecution to the Department of Justice.

On November 12, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Bannon for disobeying the subpoena. The first count cites him for refusing to testify, and the second for failing to turn over documents.

Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, but a very serious one. Conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of thirty days and a maximum of one year in jail. There is no possibility of probation, according to a 2011 federal court ruling interpreting the contempt statute.

The committee set forth its reasons for seeking Bannon’s cooperation in a succinct one-page letter that accompanied the subpoena. The letter reads in part:

“The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. For example, you have been identified as present at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election the next day, and in relation to other activities on January 6....Moreover, you are quoted as stating, on January 5, 2021 [on Bannon’s ‘War Room’ podcast] that ‘[a]ll hell is going to break loose tomorrow.’ Accordingly, the Select Committee seeks both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and multiple other matters…”

The subpoena itself lists seventeen categories of records and communications. In addition to the items highlighted in the letter, the list includes all discussions that Bannon had with Trump about the planning, financing, and staging of the events of January 6, and any communications that Bannon had with Trump between November 3, 2020, and January 20, 2021, “concerning efforts to contest the election results or delay or impede the electoral vote.”

The list also includes communications Bannon may have had with any third parties about the insurrection. The subpoena specifically names attorney Boris Epstein, who worked as a strategic adviser on Trump’s 2020 election campaign; Kash Patel, a one-time aide to former GOP Congressman Devin Nunes of California; and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, an intelligence officer who briefly served as the acting Under-Secretary of Defense in 2020.

Initially, Bannon reacted to the subpoena with tough-guy bravado. Following his first court appearance in November, he told a small crowd of supporters and reporters, “This is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. Joe Biden ordered Merrick Garland to prosecute me from the White House lawn when he got off Marine One. And . . . we’re going to go on the offense.We’re tired of playing defense. We’re going to go on the offense on this and stand by.”

Bannon might have been emboldened by the fact that contempt of Congress prosecutions arerelatively rare, and because his case was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in 2019. In March, Nichols dismissed a felony obstruction charge brought against a Texas man accused of storming the Capitol.

Nichols, however, has been anything but lenient with Bannon. On June 15, Nichols deniedBannon’s motion to dismiss the case, rejecting his claims of executive privilege and his contention that the select committee was established illegally in violation of House rules.

As Bannon’s July 18 trial date approached, he apparently had a “come-to-Jesus moment” typical of many criminal defendants faced with imminent defeat. In an email sent to committee chairman Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of South Carolina, by one of his lawyers on July 9, Bannon offered to testify after all. The email also cited a rambling letter written by Trump, waiving claims of executive privilege.

Neither Judge Nichols nor the DOJ was swayed by Bannon’s change of position. On July 11, Nichols denied Bannon’s request to postpone his trial to October.

Nichols also ruled that Bannon will not be permitted to argue executive privilege as a defense at trial, and that he will not be allowed to subpoena House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or other members of the select committee to testify. The rulings left attorney David Schoen—who represented Trump in his second impeachment trial and later joined Bannon’s legal team—so exasperated that he remarked in open court, “What’s the point in going to trial if there are no defenses.”

Unlike seditious conspiracy or obstruction cases, contempt of Congress cases do not involve complex issues of intent. All that the prosecution needs to prove is a willful or deliberate intention not to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Evil motives or corrupt purposes need not be shown.

Bannon’s eleventh-hour offer to testify likely won’t save him, either. As the DOJ noted in a recent court filing, Bannon’s crime was committed and became complete in October, when he dodged the committee’s subpoena.

What this means, bottom line, is that Bannon had best hope he isn’t housed with the general population at the infamous D.C. Central Detention Facility, where he will probably serve his sentence. The same goes for former Trump aide Peter Navarro, who has also been indicted for defying a select committee subpoena. Navarro’s trial is set to begin November 17.

And who knows—a victory in the Bannon and Navarro cases might even encourage Garland to find his spine and prosecute Trump for attempting to overthrow what remains of our damaged democracy.