Bannon is trying to convince a judge not to ban him and his lawyers from sharing documents he received from the Justice Department with the public before his trial.
Some of those records must remain private while the case is pending, DOJ prosecutors said in Sunday’s filing, because they include internal communications between congressional staffers. and notes on FBI interviews with witnesses who could testify against Bannon at trial.
“Allowing defendants to publicly release statements of witness testimony would act as collateral for witness tampering as it would compel the witness to publicly comment on their potential testimony first. upon trial and allow the witness to review summary statements of other witnesses recounting the same event or events,” prosecutors wrote on Sunday.
Bannon was charged with two counts of contempt of Congress, for failing to testify and turning over documents under a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. He has pleaded not guilty. The defense team and prosecutors will return to court on December 7, when they will talk about a trial date and potentially re-discuss confidentiality issues in the case.
that is did not publicly know what the FBI witness interviewed about Bannon.
In a new court filing, prosecutors from the DC U.S. Attorney’s Office, Amanda Vaughn, JP Cooney and Molly Gaston, specifically take issue with Bannon speaking publicly about his case, saying both outside court after his first appearance, where he said his legal team would be charged and charges against him would be “hell” for the Biden administration. Prosecutors have also said that his attorneys did not engage in good faith negotiations over a proposed confidentiality order in the case, as the judge overseeing the case wanted.
“The defense’s misleading statements, the failure, the unexplained objections, and the extrajudicial statements make clear the defense’s true purpose: to exploit the defence,” the prosecutors wrote. crime discovery to try this case in the media instead of in court”.
.
