BREAKING: Judge Gives Verdict On Steve Bannon Case After Department Of Justice Admits Spying

Photo Source: Sylvain Lefevre/Getty

Federal authorities who charged former President Trump strategist Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress have earned the judge’s displeasure after making an unexpected surprise. According to Yahoo News, they disclosed on Wednesday that they did not acquire approval from higher-ranking Justice Department officials before eavesdropping on Bannon’s attorney and mistakenly spied on other Americans with the same name.

That enraged U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who demanded to know why they felt it was appropriate or relevant to collect a huge list of defense counsel Robert Costello’s private phone conversations, text messages, and emails.

“What’s unique here is that the government didn’t just go get regular records,” he stated. “Why is that an appropriate first move?”

The court forced the government to provide him with the requests for the phone records as well as the phone records themselves for his consideration, including information obtained from tech behemoths Comcast, Google, and Yahoo.

“The behavior of the FBI and, quite frankly, DOJ has been outrageous to my attorney and the attorney-client privilege,” According to the former Trump adviser.

“Everything that was in the background of this, everything that went to the grand jury. Everything ought to come out,” he added. “The media ought to have, the American people ought to have, access to all the information about this. It’s in your interest, and it’s worth fighting for.”

Amanda Vaughn, the case’s main prosecutor, emphasized that “we never sought the substance of any correspondence.” She said that the government just wanted “toll records” on who the attorney called or wrote to and when.

“Costello is the intermediary here. It’s possible Costello never fully communicated what was…here,” She told the judge, but confessed it wasn’t the most direct proof.

“We’re not just hoovering up privileged materials,” she went on to say. “It doesn’t tell us anything about confidential communications.”

"*" indicates required fields

Will You Vote for Donald Trump in 2024?*
By Submitting Your Email, You Will Gain Access To Our Newsletter!

The defense counsel chastised the Justice Department for their tactics at the end of the session.

“I’m the actual Robert Costello they were looking for,” he stated. “It, quite frankly, shows a terrible abuse of the grand jury process.”

The defense attorney, who worked as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan alongside Rudy Giuliani years ago, claimed he would never have supported crossing this red line while at the Justice Department. Costello also told the judge that he met with prosecutors almost twice in early November in an attempt to persuade them not to charge Bannon with a crime.

He said that the FBI surreptitiously walked in on one of those conversations and repurposed the casual attorney-to-attorney offer as an official FBI interview, which he described as a heinous attempt to put a “wedge” between him and his client.

“They viewed this as an opportunity to turn me into a witness. I was making a legal presentation on a declination,” he remarked. “I certainly was not advised this was an FBI interview.”

Costello claimed that the government’s secret seizure of his personal cell phone, work landline, and home phone data violated his rights—and presumably those of his other client, Giuliani, in an unconnected case. Evan Corcoran and David Schoen, the defendant’s other attorneys, cast cold water on that.

“That… is absurd on its face. There is a special relationship between an attorney and their client,” Schoen addressed the judge. “Hopefully the inspector general sees things differently.”

“What on Earth were they going to tell from the records? They knew he was communicating with Bannon,” he added. “I think what happened is outrageous.”

Wadie Said, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, suggested that the investigators may have harmed their case by doing more than “creating a lot of work for themselves and unnecessary information.” “That appears to be really strange and overreaching,” he stated. “By operating in such a wide manner, you expose yourself to a smart attorney taking apart your strategies.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: