“In the circumstances presented here, it would be fundamentally unfair and a clear violation of the due process to allow this prosecution to proceed,” Bannon’s lawyers wrote in a court statement late Friday. “It must be rejected.” Bannon is scheduled to stand trial in July on a criminal defamation lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against him for failing to comply with a January 6 House Committee summons. He has pleaded not guilty. Bannon’s legal team has repeatedly pointed out that Trump was trying to claim executive privilege in some files as part of Bannon’s defense. “Mr. Bannon took real power in this case for his non-compliance with the summons directly from the invocation of the executive privilege by former President Trump and the corresponding instruction to Mr. Bannon, that Mr. Bannon must honor it. the invocation in connection with the summons. ” Bannon’s lawyers wrote in the court file. Bannon’s testimony late Friday comes after he suffered a major setback in his case, which the Department of Justice brought in in November after failing to comply with a summons issued by the Jan. 6 commission. U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled last week that Bannon could not use defense – if his case is heard – evidence that he followed his lawyer’s advice by choosing not to cooperate with the House investigation. On Friday, the Justice Department sought to further restrict the evidence that Bannon could present in his defense, asking Judge Bannon to rule out three new categories of evidence. The Ministry of Justice wants to exclude its internal views and writings that set out the department’s views on whether current or former federal officials can be prosecuted in subpoenas in which they have claimed executive privileges or immunity. Bannon obtained the files after obtaining a warrant from the judge, although several of the documents were already public and referred to Bannon’s previous testimony. The Justice Department also argued that the internal affairs documents that Bannon has mentioned so far face scenarios different from those Bannon faced when he chose not to participate in the investigation. “The accused was not summoned in connection with the period when he was an executive in the executive branch and was never instructed by the executive branch or former President Donald Trump to be involved in complete non-compliance with the summons of the Select Committee of January 6 (” the “As he chose to do,” the statement said. “Given the irrelevance of the evidence, the Court should rule it out.” Bannon served as a White House adviser to the Trump administration, but was outside the federal government for years before the House committee considered it. Shortly after the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the files, Bannon showed the documents in a notice to the court about his intentions to support a “asylum trap” defense – an argument that the The defendant had been misled by government statements into believing that his conduct was lawful. In his request for dismissal, Bannon argued that the Justice Department’s previous guidance was relevant to his case and should provide grounds for dismissal. “The legal authority on which Mr Bannon relied in this case reflects the official, formal, binding, valid position of the Department of Justice, the very body that prosecutes this case in direct breach of its own official, binding, published official “Bannon’s lawyers wrote. The Justice Department also asked the judge to keep out all the evidence that Bannon wants to submit that he had complied with previous summonses. According to the ministry, Bannon’s lawyer made a presentation to prosecutors before his client was indicted. with Trump. “Just like the fact that a person did not rob a bank overnight is irrelevant to determining whether he robbed one bank into another, whether the defendant complied with other calls or deposit requests – even those involving contact with the former “President – – it does not matter whether he illegally refused to comply with the Commission ‘s summons here,” the DOJ wrote on Friday. Finally, the government told the court that Bannon should not have been able to argue in his trial that the Commission’s January 6 summons was invalid due to alleged procedural flaws plaguing the commission. Any procedural objections that Bannon sought to raise about the commission’s summons come too late, the Justice Department said in a request on Friday to limit that defense. “It is an established law in the context of congressional contempt that a summoned witness who does not raise an obvious objection or privilege of being summoned to the extradition committee has waived it in defense of contempt,” the government wrote in the court statement. Bannon, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit in court on Friday seeking the exclusion of evidence obtained by the government from summonses issued in his lawyer’s telephone and email records, as well as from presentations made to prosecutors before indictment. . Bannon accused the government of “prosecuting exaggeration” for asking for information about his lawyer and said the government had misled the grand jury, both of whom were fired, Bannon’s lawyers argued in court. Pre-trial disputes over evidence will outline each side of the case. Bannon is just one of four unruly witnesses referred to the Justice Department for prosecution by the Commission on January 6, but the only one to face criminal prosecution for failing to comply with the commission’s summons. The way his case unfolds will resonate as other potential witnesses weigh in on whether or not to cooperate with the congressional inquiry. This story and title have been updated.
title: “Steve Bannon Asks Judge To Dismiss His Contempt Of Congress Case Ahead Of July Trial " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-17” author: “Michael Eastwood”
Among the reasons Bannon gave for dismissing his case: He said that the congressional summons he received was invalid due to the composition of the selection committee of the Parliament that investigated the attack on January 6, 2021 in the US Capitol and claimed that it was “targeted sending a message. “
Bannon also argued that his actions were necessary to protect the former president’s ability to shield information based on executive privilege claims, and insisted that he had relied on previous US Department of Justice guidance on executive privilege in defiance of a congressional summons.
“In the circumstances presented here, it would be fundamentally unfair and a clear violation of the due process to allow this prosecution to proceed,” Bannon’s lawyers wrote in a court statement late Friday. “It must be rejected.”
Bannon is scheduled to stand trial in July on a criminal defamation lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against him for failing to comply with a January 6 House Committee summons. He has pleaded not guilty.
Bannon’s legal team has repeatedly pointed out that Trump was trying to claim executive privilege in some files as part of Bannon’s defense.
“Mr. Bannon took real power in this case for his non-compliance with the summons directly from former President Trump’s invocation of executive power and the corresponding directive to Mr. Bannon that Mr. Bannon should honor this invocation in relation to the summons “. Bannon’s lawyers wrote in the court file.
Bannon’s testimony late Friday comes after he suffered a major setback in his case, which the Department of Justice brought in in November after failing to comply with a summons issued by the Jan. 6 commission.
U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled last week that Bannon could not use defense – if his case is heard – evidence that he followed his lawyer’s advice by choosing not to cooperate with the House investigation.
On Friday, the Justice Department sought to further restrict the evidence that Bannon could present in his defense, asking Judge Bannon to rule out three new categories of evidence.
The Ministry of Justice wants to exclude its internal views and writings that set out the department’s views on whether current or former federal officials can be prosecuted in subpoenas in which they have claimed executive privileges or immunity. Bannon obtained the files after obtaining a warrant from the judge, although several of the documents were already public and referred to Bannon’s previous testimony.
The Justice Department also argued that the internal affairs documents that Bannon has mentioned so far face scenarios different from those Bannon faced when he chose not to participate in the investigation.
“The accused was not summoned in connection with the period when he was an executive in the executive branch and was never instructed by the executive branch or former President Donald Trump to be involved in complete non-compliance with the summons of the Select Committee of January 6 (” the “As he chose to do,” the statement said. “Given the irrelevance of the evidence, the Court should rule it out.”
Bannon served as a White House adviser to the Trump administration, but was outside the federal government for years before the House committee considered it.
Shortly after the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the files, Bannon showed the documents in a notice to the court about his intentions to support a “asylum trap” defense – an argument that the The defendant had been misled by government statements into believing that his conduct was lawful.
In his request for dismissal, Bannon argued that the Justice Department’s previous guidance was relevant to his case and should provide grounds for dismissal.
“The legal authority on which Mr Bannon relied in this case reflects the official, formal, binding, valid position of the Department of Justice, the very body that prosecutes this case in direct breach of its own official, binding, published official “Bannon’s lawyers wrote.
The Justice Department also asked the judge to keep out all the evidence that Bannon wants to submit that he had complied with previous summonses. According to the ministry, Bannon’s lawyer made a presentation to prosecutors before his client was indicted. with Trump.
“Just like the fact that a person did not rob a bank overnight is irrelevant in determining whether he robbed one bank into another, whether the defendant complied with other calls or deposit requests – even those relating to contacting him. “It does not matter if the former president – – determined whether he illegally refused to comply with the Commission ‘s summons here,” the DOJ wrote on Friday.
Finally, the government told the court that Bannon should not have been able to argue in his trial that the Commission’s January 6 summons was invalid due to alleged procedural flaws plaguing the commission.
Any procedural objections that Bannon sought to raise about the commission’s summons come too late, the Justice Department said in a request on Friday to limit that defense.
“It is an established law in the context of congressional contempt that a summoned witness who does not raise an obvious objection or privilege of being summoned to the extradition committee has waived it in defense of contempt,” the government wrote in the court statement.
Bannon, meanwhile, filed a lawsuit in court on Friday seeking the exclusion of evidence obtained by the government from summonses issued in his lawyer’s telephone and email records, as well as from presentations made to prosecutors before indictment. .
Bannon accused the government of “overstepping the law” because he asked for information about his lawyer and said the government had misled the grand jury, both of whom were fired, Bannon’s lawyers argued in court.
Pre-trial disputes over evidence will outline each side of the case.
Bannon is just one of four unruly witnesses referred to the Justice Department for prosecution by the Commission on January 6, but the only one to face criminal prosecution for failing to comply with the commission’s summons. The way his case unfolds will resonate as other potential witnesses weigh in on whether or not to cooperate with the congressional inquiry.
