Judge Carl Nichols of the District Court of the District of Columbia rejected Bannon’s request to dismiss the case against him, including his arguments that the summons of the House of Representatives election commission were illegal and that he was protected from the presidency’s secrecy because was in contact with Trump at the end of his rule.
The ruling is likely to add fire to the House of Representatives investigation on Jan. 6, which is holding public hearings this month on its findings, and blesses Justice Department’s decision to prosecute Bannon, who left the Trump administration in 2017.
Bannon and several other conservatives tried to fight the summons of the elected commission in court, but their arguments were repeatedly rejected by federal judges.
Bannon’s is the first criminal trial approved by a judge. Another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, was recently accused by the Justice Department of contempt of Congress in connection with his January 6 investigation.
RELATED: Peter Navarro calls arrest agents “good Nazis”, says FBI
“The court cannot conclude as a matter of law” that the commission was set up incorrectly, nor that Bannon is right in claiming that the summons was not properly cut and the charge is invalid, Nichols said on Wednesday. “After all, the full panel approved,” referring Bannon’s disrespect to the Justice Department for trial, he added.
Bannon pleaded not guilty and is set to go to trial on July 18, although his lawyer, David Schoen, said Wednesday he could ask for an adjournment.
The House Election Commission sought Bannon’s testimony and records last fall, at the beginning of its aggressive investigation, citing how Bannon spoke about a relationship with Trump in late December 2020 and early January 2021 and was in the Willard Hotel in Washington on January 5, 2021, as Trump advisers sought to block congressional certification of voting in the Electoral College. Bannon also said on January 5 that “all hell will break out tomorrow,” the commission said when it sent him the summons.
Charges of contempt of Bannon for Congress carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in prison if convicted.
Nichols also ruled Monday that instructions from Trump’s lawyers to Bannon last year were not enough to defend Bannon.
Trump’s lawyer sent a letter to Bannon after being summoned by the House of Representatives, ordering him not to comply with congressional requests for testimony and documents that may relate to privileged material. The letter said Bannon should not provide “where appropriate” information, Nichols said.
But Trump’s lawyer later told Bannon’s lawyer that Trump’s team did not believe Bannon would have widespread “absolute” immunity from testimony. Trump’s instructions were also not specific about which topics or documents should be protected by executive privilege.
“I don’t think the letters reflect an unequivocal statement about Trump’s executive privilege,” Nichols said.
Bannon’s lawyer told the court on Wednesday that his team could ask for testimony in the trial from Trump’s lawyer Justin Clark.
The Department of Justice is vigorously attacking Bannon’s other arguments, which sometimes go deep into the history and power of the executive.
Prosecutors say past Justice Department policies that protect administration officials from prosecution after failing to appear under subpoenas in Congress do not apply to Bannon. This distinction was highlighted recently when the department refused to prosecute two senior advisers at Trump’s White House, then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and his deputy, Dan Scavino, after the House voted disrespectful to them.
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said Wednesday that Bannon “cannot start defending” parts of the Justice Department’s policies that apply to someone who no longer works in the administration, given the division between the former president and the former president. the current president to uphold the privilege. No policies have been written by the Ministry of Justice to protect anyone in this way, she added.
Parts of past departmental policies for close advisers to presidents should not allow Bannon to claim that “he has a free pass to commit crimes,” Vaughn told a judge.
Nichols seemed to agree that there was no opinion of anyone in Bannon’s explicit position. But Nichols pointed out that the policy of the last department could potentially be a defense that Bannon pointed out during his trial.
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Sarah Murray contributed to this report.
Add Comment