Judge rules for Bannon on access to DOJ deliberations on executive privilege

The judge in the case has slammed federal prosecutors who have charged former Trump adviser Steve Bannon with contempt of Congress after they made a shocking admission.

Bannon’s team asked the judge to send a message about the Department of Justice’s practices in obtaining attorney data.

According to Yahoo News, They revealed on Wednesday that they did not seek permission from higher-ranking Justice Department officials before spying on Bannon’s lawyer and wrongly spying on other Americans with the same name.

That incensed 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 calls, text messages, and emails.

“What makes this case exceptional is that the government didn’t just go out and obtain standard records,” he explained. “What makes you think that’s a good initial move?”

The court ordered the government to provide him with the requests for phone records as well as the phone records themselves for scrutiny, including information obtained from tech giants Comcast, Google, and Yahoo.

“The FBI’s and, quite honestly, the DOJ’s approach toward my attorney and the attorney-client privilege has been ridiculous,” the former Trump adviser added.

“Everything that was going on in the background, everything that was going to the grand jury.” He stated, “Everything ought to come out.” “All information concerning this should be available to the media and the American people. It is in your best interests, and it is worthwhile to fight for.”

Amanda Vaughn, the case’s chief prosecutor, stated emphatically that “we never sought content of any correspondence.” She said that the government was merely looking for “toll records,” or information on who the attorney was contacting or writing to and when.

“In this case, Costello is the go-between. She told the judge that “it’s possible Costello never properly explained what was…here,” but admitted that “it may not be the most direct proof.” She stated, “We’re not just scavenging privileged materials.” “It gives us no information regarding secret communications.”