(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

The government was probably always going to get a protective order for discovery documents in Steve Bannon’s contempt of congress case. But the defendant’s antics certainly didn’t help matters.

It’s pretty hard to argue that you’re not seeking to turn your trial into public spectacle when you livestream yourself on the courthouse steps promising to make your case “the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden” and instructing your viewers to “stand by.” And yet Bannon’s attorneys Evan Corcoran and David Schoen gave it the old college try at a raucous hearing before US District Judge Carl Nichols on Tuesday.

Sponsored Now Hiring! Sherman & Howard is seeking associates in Denver. From Sherman & Howard

They sought to paint the government’s proposed order, which is routinely accepted by federal defendants in DC, as a wild abrogation of the First Amendment and their client’s right to a public trial. Why shouldn’t Steve Bannon be able to post FBI 302s online? What possible harm is there in letting him talk about internal congressional emails on his podcast? Schoen went so far as to insist that those emails were “presumptively public,” prompting immediate pushback from AUSA Amanda Vaughn, because that is not a thing.

As if we didn’t just witness Bannon’s pal Roger Stone try to weasel a mistrial out of leaked juror questionnaires that painted a target on the back of the foreman.

googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display("div-id-for-storycontent-440x100"); }); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display("div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1"); });

After much Sturm und Drang, the government appears to have gotten its way. Judge Nichols approved the order substantially as proposed by prosecutors, with the addition of a paragraph specifying that defendants may use information obtained through outside sources as they wish. So far, so normal.

But while we’re taking this little field trip to the Bannon docket, we can’t help but notice that his former attorney Robert “Garth Brooks Pardon Dangle” Costello just entered an appearance. Costello stiff-armed the Select Committee on Bannon’s behalf, insisting that it was his considered legal opinion that someone who hadn’t worked in the White House since 2017 was nonetheless covered by executive privilege as to events which took place in 2021.

Sponsored Matterly: Bring The Power Of Salesforce CRM To The Practice Of Law With Matterly in your arsenal, you can finally capitalize on the power of Salesforce in a way that works with the day-to-day practice of law. From Stephanie Wilkins

And if, as seems pretty likely, Bannon intends to assert an advice of counsel defense — i.e. that he lacked the intent to break the law because his lawyer told him it was totally kosher — Costello may wind up a witness in this trial. Which is hardly the craziest thing about the case, but still, WTF?

US v. Bannon [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye (@5DollarFeminist) lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Topics

Courts, Crime, Government, Steve Bannon