The judge in the criminal trial of former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon has said he will not allow the process to be turned into a “political circus”.
The prosecution had raised concern that the defence side in the case may seek to raise claims of political motivation on the part of members of the congressional committee investigating the January 6th riots at the US Capitol. It was a committee referral to the Department of Justice over Mr Bannon’s lack of co-operation with its work that led to his prosecution.
US district judge Carl Nichols on Wednesday placed limits around questions that could be asked about alleged political bias. “I do not intend this to become a political case, a political circus, a forum for partisan politics,” he said.
[ Kathy Sheridan: Trump lickspittles are being lionised by January 6th hearingsOpens in new window ]
Mr Bannon, a chief strategist at the White House under the presidency of Donald Trump, faces two counts of contempt of Congress. If convicted, he would face a minimum of 30 days in prison and potentially up to one year. He could also face a fine of up to $100,000 (€98,414).
Radio: Tempers rise over immigration debate as Matt Cooper scolds warring politicians
‘I want someone to take an actual stand on immigration’: How will TCD student debaters vote?
Spice Village takeaway review: Indian food in south Dublin that will keep you coming back
Trump’s cabinet: who’s been picked, who’s in the running?
Kristin Amerling, general counsel with the January 6th committee and the prosecution’s first witness, gave evidence that she sent a 10-page subpoena to Mr Bannon’s then lawyer on September 23rd last. This sought his client’s records, emails and other communications with a number of associates of the former president including Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn and John Eastman.
The subpoena required Mr Bannon to comply by October 7th last year and to appear for a deposition the following week.
She said Mr Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that if he did not co-operate it would force the committee to refer the matter to the justice department for prosecution.
She said Mr Bannon did not respond by the committee’s deadline of 10am on October 7th but later that day his lawyer sent an email.
This said Mr Trump’s lawyer had indicated that some of the details sought in the subpoena involved information that was potentially protected from disclosure by executive and other privileges, said Ms Amerling.
The email said Mr Trump was prepared to defend these privilege issues in court and until there was a resolution his client could not respond to the committee’s request for records and testimony, she added.
Ms Amerling said the committee replied to Mr Bannon by letter and maintained his position had no legal basis.
The letter said wilful noncompliance with the subpoena would force the committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures, which could result in a referral from the House of Representatives to the Department of Justice for criminal charges – as well as the possibility of having a civil action to enforce the subpoena brought against Mr Bannon in his personal capacity.
