When Steven Bannon was hit with a subpoena, I told everyone this would not be good for Democrats.
Bannon has proven in the past that he will cut off his nose to spite his face, so why Democrats thought they would be able to push him around is beyond me.
The former Trump adviser is now going on the offensive claiming that the feds have been snooping on his attorney.
Bannon has been charged with contempt of Congress for not honoring the subpoena by the January 6 Select Committee.
When Bannon turned himself in, he warned Democrats that they were in for one hell of a fight.
Bannon has fired a counter shot, with his defense attorneys going on the offensive.
The motion stated, “The Government used grand jury subpoenas to investigate Mr. Bannon’s attorney, Robert J. Costello, Esquire, at the very time that Mr. Costello was communicating with the prosecution team and advocating on Mr. Bannon’s behalf.
“There are stringent rules that apply to the investigation of attorneys.
“Such rules exist because these types of investigations may constitute an impermissible interference with the attorney-client relationship, and the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“If the Government failed to follow the applicable rules – which will be revealed through additional discovery – a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment.”
The defense then turned over records that seemed to confirm that his attorney’s records were obtained.
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn responded, “Mr. Costello represented Mr. Bannon before the January 6th Select Committee in relation to the subpoena it issued to Mr. Bannon and is, therefore, a witness to the conduct charged in the Indictment.”
She added that “the Government has not taken any steps to obtain any attorney-work product relating to any attorney’s representation of Mr. Bannon or to obtain any confidential communications between Mr. Bannon, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Katz, or between Mr. Bannon and any other attorneys.”
The motion also asks for more transparency regarding how the grand jury came about issuing the indictment.
Because Bannon had requested a week to reply to the subpoena, his attorneys believe a detail was omitted, which possibly led the grand jury to think he would not cooperate.
The motion stated, “In testimony on November 12, 2021, the lead FBI agent in the case made no mention of Mr. Bannon’s request for adjournment even when specifically questioned about the topic.”
“…It is unlikely that this involved a lapse in memory because the same lead FBI agent was aware of the request for adjournment when he testified. Robert J. Costello, Esquire, had told him about it in a November 3, 2021, interview, and it is referenced in a report of that interview that the lead FBI agent finalized on November 11, 2021 – just one day before his grand jury appearance.
“The letter seeking an adjournment on behalf of Mr. Bannon is not among the grand jury exhibits that were provided to the defense.
“Additional discovery is needed to assess whether the lead agent’s testimony, viewed in conjunction with the grand jury instructions and any other information provided to the grand jury by the prosecution team, may be grounds for dismissal of the indictment.”
If this motion is granted, it will be a crushing blow to prosecutors and the January 6 Select Committee.
Do you think Bannon has a case?
Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below.
Source: Just the News