jail. that is, unless this man can save them that's attorney david shown who will speak to live in just a moment. look, it's been what, two years now since bannon was convicted of contempt of congress for defining a subpoena from the january 6 committee. remember that his excuse back then, his lawyer at the time, robert costello, remember him from the hush money trial. one witness is calling the defense. while the time he said i didn't have to comply because he thought trump would assert executive privilege he didn't and bad, it was apparently on notice of that fact as well we have been appealing his conviction ever since that time and up until now, the judge in this case had been kind of holding off on the sentence. but today the judge said enough, there was no legal reason left to delay that sentence. we told bannon he has to report to prison then on july 1st, to serve a four month sentence outside the courthouse, steve bannon was see bannon but i want to say something specifically about the justice department merrick garland, lisa monaco, the atari justice department. >> they're not going to shut up trump they're not going to shop navarro you're not going to shut up bannon and they're certainly not going to shop maga. there's not a prison, there's not a prison built. there is not a prison built or jail built that every shut me up. all victory to maga well donald trump called this an american tragedy and he was apparently so angry that even called to indict the january 6 committee. remember those remembers a congress when, as part of a long now and growing list of trump allies who have been sentenced to prison, people who stretched back to the trump organization days. and the 2016 election and the 2020 campaign. and that includes peter navarro, who is currently in miami prison right now for the same reason, contempt of congress joining me now, steve bannon's attorney, david, shown he also presented former president donald trump in his second impeachment trial. david, thank you so much for being here this evening. we're all trying to unpack all that happened in the courthouse today and i want to ask you about what has been described as a pretty heated moment between you and judge carl nichols after there he ordered bannon to report to prison next month. you objected. obviously, you are as council and the new york times is reporting that judge nicholls responded in a way that let him, you know, he wasn't too thrilled with the response saying one thing i need you to learn as a lawyer is that when a judge has decided you do not get up and yell at them. look, i know you're an advocate for your client explain your reaction. >> were you surprised by his decision to order him to go to jail shocked by it. >> it goes against everything that he has said in this case. judge nicholas found substantial questions for the appeal, said twice at ben and should not be serving his time while the appeals process runs. the appeal process has not run. there's nothing about the panel decision that change that. judge nicholls said that the definition of willfully used in this case cannot be reconciled with the modern or traditional definition of willfully laura, i'm a big fan of yours, but i have to correct something you said in a monologue former president trump absolutely did invoke executive privilege. nobody disputes that. not only that, he wrote a letter before the trial started. can reaffirming it in case anyone has a question about it. and that's all in the record. that's different from the navarro case. and judge nicholls even said today, well, the court of appeals opinion could have mentioned that, but they didn't and so on. but of appeals opinion is an abomination. they misstate the facts they omit the facts. they leave out the primary argument, the primary argument here is that in the 60 years since is like a vole case, which says willfully solely in the context of this statute, means did you get a subpoena and comply or not comply with no reason matters. 60 here's since then, the court has the definition of willfully has evolved. so in 2019, the court said literally, when congress wants to say an act is criminal, and they say willfully, you must know that the actor did was illegal or wrong, or we don't attribute criminal liability to it. that was what nicholls had found earlier. let me unpack hello. this and certainly i'm not above clarification if you think it's necessary to do so, but let me talk for the audience's perspective on the case. you just described. i'm just going to in plain speak this comes down to notion of advice of counsel and whether that was a willful action by steve bannon to not comply with the subpoena if it was advice of counsel, i think he wanted to argue that list send it wasn't a deliberate act. it was advice of counsel. he was following and that's why didn't provide the information or respond. they'd court though did fine, although they did wait some time that they were their hands were tied on the idea of it had to be a deliberate, intentional act and that was enough to go forward in this case. and so here you are. >> getting ready to appeal this matter. likely. i'm assuming all way up the supreme court, if necessary, peter navarro though, did try to appeal to the supreme court what would make this instance different to you? >> navarro was cases completely different? there was no executive privilege ever invoked in the case. that's what the court found. and there's no advice of counsel. listen the cases even before the cavoli and in the liquor vole case in 1961 case that nicholas says he was following the defendant was permitted to testify as to his reasons at the government's behest. this department of justice he has bannon was barred from testifying. costello was barred from testifying about what happened and what their reasons were. and the jury was told they may not consider the reasons remember, castello got the subpoena, not bannon costello as the experienced lawyer told bannon, executive privilege has been invoked, you may not comply, period. it would be against the law. it's not your privilege. but he told the committee, if you take them before a court and the court says privilege doesn't apply or it's not this broad, he will comply fully. they decided not to do that. they went on the air posturing and so on. they're going to pursue this criminally. and that's what they chose to do. we impose criminal liability yeah. >> i agree. excuse me. what is the argument you would make to the court of appeal to the supreme court that you think would allow your client not to serve those four months in jail time, what would be a successful legal appellate argument? >> two arguments. the defense definition of willfully used by the liquor volley court, that this court said their hands were tied by, is no longer a valid definition of willfully in the criminal law period, the supreme court has said it since 2015 and 2019. they said it expressly there's absolutely no question about it. they say willfully mean the different things in different contexts. the threshold for criminal liability is that you knew are believed you were doing something wrong. steve bannon believed the only thing he could do to comply with the law was what he did in this case. that's what his lawyer told them. and that's what he was entitled to rely on. the jury should have been told that that's number one. number two, if you want to apply willfully this way you've created a separation of powers problem. congress isn't the final arbiter when a president or former president invokes executive privilege, period, it's presumptively valid and congress can't decide that go to a court. a court could decide it. and that's what ben and ask them to do. they refuse to do it. there's a constitutional mandate to accommodate tried to work in accommodation dc circuit said that they refuse to do it for steve bannon and that's why people lose faith in the system. we have to treat people equally well. >> steve bannon has argued something different than what you were describing today. he's talking about weaponization and more and more loaded terms. he's talked me about this being an issue that is more broadly with the narrative we're hearing about an attack on trump and attempt to try to suppress maga as well. i mean, shutting down the maga movement. he is accused this judge of doing this is, by the way, trump appointed judge, this is somebody who was a clerk, i believe of i'm not mistaken. supreme court justice clarence thomas, he's been a partner at a number of law firms as well well regarded. does that undermine the arguments that you are now making? >> i don't think so. he undermines his own argument. he's the one who says five or six times during the trial that he things look a vole was wrongly decided, but his hands are tied. he acknowledged today that this panel, the court of appeals panel, hands were tied. the government acknowledged it. the government argued to them, you don't have the authority to overturn like a vole. nothing changed. he should shouldn't have changed his bail status. listen, it's not such a major event in the sense that all he could have done was let him out on bail until rehearing a rehearing on bonk is decided in this case, what he did though is cut the top, pull the rug out from under him because he has to file now, he's going to send a person to prison, who he himself has said didn't comply. who he himself has said was convicted under a definition of willfully that simply is not consistent with the law. we don't do that. there's no reason to send him to prison now, let this case play out. this is a misdemeanor. >> i hear you, david. and of course, the judge disagrees and believes there's no more legal recourse in this action and that willfulness and that lack of only case we're talking about seemed to stan has precedent. we'll see if an appellate court agrees with you, david show and thank you so much thank you very much. as continuous conversation now with former white house deputy press secretary under the trump administration, sarah matthews, also a cnn political commentators, former deputy chief of staff for hud under the trump administration. sure. michael singleton senior spokesperson for hillary clinton, 2016 presidential campaign. karen finney, glad to have all of you here. first of all, you've testified before the house january 6 committee obviously, you complied with the obligation under a subpoena. it wasn't like you raised your hand and said, pick me pick me that back. in two years in the making and only now is the judge ordering him to go to jail and the argument is making your response are about the weaponization again, what is your reaction to all of this? >> yeah, it's really rich, i think two here, steve bannon complain that this is a weapon sensation of government and that mag is being targeted. look, he could have just complied with the subpoena and by complying, it doesn't even mean that he had to answer the questions of the january 6 committee. i do wish that he the hard because i think he could have shed light on the plot to try to overturn the 2020 election but obviously he could have just showed up and fled the fifth. and i think general michael flynn did that. so there were other people who are loyal maga, like figures who complied with the subpoena, who don't find themselves in this same position that now steve bannon finds himself in and he has no one to really blame but himself for now, having to report to jail. >> it almost strikes me as a badge of honor. we keep hearing this. the idea of the honor of going to jail. i think trump is said that in the past he's compares himself to nelson mandela full stop, that's ridiculous period then you've got the idea of what this would mean to prove that you in fact, where it's sticking it to the man and then you had this moment that trump is out there talking to a number of outlets, including dr. phil today, and he was ranting some familiar grievances dr. phil tried to encourage men take a higher road listen what he said every situation needs a hero. >> what, what a great opportunity to step up and say, you know what it stops here, it stops with me. >> i think you'll be impressed. we have to unite the counter. we have to save the country that's not really saving the country there are people that did some bad things. i know who they are. >> i think you have so much to do. you don't have time to get even. you only have time to get right? >> well revenge, just take time. i will say that it does. and sometimes revenge can be justified i mean, the phrase is dish serve coal, but apparently he says he has he has time. my understanding of the presidency is that you would not have time to do engage in endeavors that would not be justified under the criminal system. but what do you make of his doubling down and believing that this revenge tour is justified? >> i think dr. phil was trying to give the former president and out on that discussion because i actually agree with dr. phil. i mean, if if you wanna get revenge on a group of people, are your political adversaries and let the revenge be your success in governing let the revenge, revenge be your ability to say, i've brought down unemployment further or the economy is booming and everybody of every ethnicity seems to be making more money. and their savings accounts are flush with cash. that to me is an articular able political revenge if you're talking about i'm talking about trump what do you, mean i'm just answering the question. i'm laura terms of if i were to say, hey, i'm going to seek revenge, my revenge would be look at my success and my accomplishments under my tenure. >> you look at the idea of somebody who's trying to be the head of executive branch and could wield power. that's what he's trying to do in this revenge tour of sorts. talking about the future, there is a current head of the executive branch, president biden, and his son is in trial. and the federal court in wilmington, delaware. he said, look, if he's convicted, he's not going to pardon him. he's not going to use the power that he could what did listen to what he actually said about this point, by the way? >> let me ask you, will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? >> yes. >> and have you ruled out a pardon for your son? >> yes what do you make it that answer? full stop. easy answer actually, for the president, i mean, i'd states of america joe biden, because he is a decent, honorable human being who understands that his son did something wrong and needs to be held accountable if he's if he's convicted and as we've seen throughout all of the trials and tribulations, frankly, with hunter, this president has not once tried to put his finger on the scale, tried to massage the evidence, tried to do anything. he hasn't threatened anybody. he has stayed out of it quite frankly. and just said, i'm his father and i love him, which i think a lot of people can actually relate to. and so we hope that for those voters in the middle who are still trying to decide when we talk about character and what matters. that's what matters. that's a man of honour. donald trump and steve bannon are cowards. they are doing everything they can to avoid accountability and you only do that when you're a coward and you don't want to be held accountable and trump saying like, well, i'm not afraid of it, go to jail. that's such a load of bs and we know that he's terrified of it, but this is the kind of big sort of bulli talk that he likes to just bluster. >> sarah would know better than i. >> but again, i hope people see through it and see that's a coward that is not a man of care, blubbering you in this era because there are a number of people who share the sentiment that karen has just said. some of them are republicans and some anti-trump republicans. biden, we understand it is just now more fulsomely reaching out to those particular people who could be his allies. i guess the idea the enemy of my enemy is my political friend. we are sandy bridge sat to cassidy hutchinson as well. has anyone reached out? to you and you expect them to and would you be receptive no one has reached out to me. >> i am open to a conversation. i have said publicly that if my choices in november or joe biden and donald trump, that i will have no choice but to vote for joe biden. i don't really necessarily view it as a vote for joe biden, but more so a vote against shrimp. i just can't and good faith vote for someone who has shown us that he will not uphold the constitution and who to this day will not admit that he lost the 2020 election. and was the first president to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. and so i would encourage other americans to follow suit. i know right now, i think there are a lot of people like myself, whether that be moderate republicans are independents who are hugely disappointed with their options? then 2024 and i empathized with that. but at the end of the day, i can put policy aside and know that joe biden is a person of good character and who will be a good leader for us. whereas donald trump has shown us what kind of leader he was at the end of his first admonition well, look, if if that is a shared sentiment, he's got about 150 days to try to envelop more people into the fold. that's little point. the general election, the primary season is really done for the presidency now where they going to do about it. thank you so much. all of you i had some really shocking new details in the gilgo beach killings, suspect rex heuermann is now indicted on two additional murder charge prosecutors say that they found some kind of actual a planning document that outlined future killings the da who is leading this case joins we next the most anticipated moment of this election and the stakes couldn't be higher, biden democracy is on the ballot. >> your freedom is on the ballot. >> trump, there is nothing we cannot do. we will make america powerful again, the president in the fall more president once day two, very different visions for america's future. the weight only cnn can bring it to you, moderated by jake tapper and dana bash, the cnn presidential debate thursday, june 27th at nine i live on cnn and streaming on max at morgan stanley old school hardware meets bold new thinking at 88-years-old, we still see the world with a wonder of new eyes helping you discover untapped possibilities and relentlessly working with you to make them real old school grid new world ideas. >> morgan stanley yellows, not going to fly about the lab there's toothpaste white and there's chris 3d whitestrips, white widens like a $400 professional treatment crest over 13 million americans were affected. >> my identity theft in 2022 and the threats are more than you realize if you're a victim of identity theft, lifelong works to fix it on your behalf backed by them million dollars protection package, enroll now for gentle, dependable constipation, really tries seneca, it works differently than other laxatives because it's made from the center flat a natural vegetable active ingredient in gentle, dependable seneca, also available in delicious gummies jamaica sale is now odd with rates from 199 per person per night visit, sandals dot com, or call 1800 sandals rose sparks engineered for the spontaneous a dual action formula with the active ingredients of viagra and sialic faster acting, and long-lasting, grabbed the moment get started at row.com slash sparks. sure. i'm a paid actor and this isn't a real company, but there's no way to fake up work can help your business so it's talent all over the world with over 10,000 skills, you may not happen house more than 30% of the fortune 500 use upwork because this is how we work now to give your teeth a dentist clean feeling. start with a round brush head add power, and you've got oral-b round cleans better