Steve Bannon appeared in federal court on Monday after being charged with criminal contempt of Congress.
Judge Carl Nichols was randomly assigned to preside over the prosecution of Steve Bannon.
Since his confirmation to the federal bench, Nichols has ruled against Trump and his allies.
The judge will set the pace for the prosecution that is closely watched.
Steve Bannon appeared to hit the judge-drawing lottery when his criminal prosecution was assigned to a Donald Trump appointee.
In the two years since Judge Carl Nichols' confirmation to the federal trial court in Washington, DC, he has ruled repeatedly against Trump and his allies and often found himself in high-profile cases.
The criminal contempt of Congress charge against Bannon could be concerning for the former top White House advisor and Trump campaign official, who refused to turn over documents or testify as part of the House investigation into the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
As House Democrats investigated Trump and his administration, a politically-charged case was drawn by the federal judge, who said it presented a "conundrum." In July of last year, President Trump sued to prevent New York from turning over his financial records to Democrats.
The judge said in court that the case put Nichols in a "very awkward position" since House Democrats had not asked New York for Trump's state tax returns. At the same time, the House could request the records at any moment and New York could turn them over without notifying Trump, which would deprive him of a chance to challenge the move.
In a blow to Trump, the federal district court in DC was the wrong place for a case against New York officials.
From the Supreme Court to Bush's DOJ.
The prosecution of the former corporate lawyer has brought him back to the spotlight and placed him in a position to make critical decisions in a case with ramifications beyond the case of the Capitol attack.
A former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, Nichols later worked as a corporate lawyer at the firm. According to a recent report, the president's close advisors have "absolute immunity" and can ignore congressional subpoenas.
Carl Nichols is a good shooter. He was in the government and had to make decisions. Jamie Gorelick, a partner at Wilmer Hale, served as the second-ranking Justice Department official in the Clinton administration.
Gorelick said that Nichols will want to move things along quickly but with the rights of the defendants in mind.
Ahead of any trial on whether or not executive privilege shields him from complying with the special House committee's subpoenas, Nichols will likely have to rule.
Legal experts said that by the time of the attack on the Capitol, Bannon had not worked in the White House for years, undercutting his claim of privilege. Even if the conversations with Trump were protected, they would still need to appear before the House committee and invoke privilege on a question-by-question basis.
He received a subpoena and failed to show up. Randall Eliason, a former public corruption prosecutor in Washington who now teaches at the George Washington University School of Law, said that unless he has a legal privilege argument to make, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
"I don't think the executive privilege questions are very difficult since the White House didn't have an executive in place for three years", he said.
Insurrectionists loyal to President Donald Trump broke into the Capitol on January 6.
The pace of prosecution.
The pace of a prosecution that House Democrats hope will deter other Trump officials from ignoring congressional subpoenas will be set by Nichols.
A federal grand jury returned an indictment last week charging Steve Bannon with two counts of contempt of Congress over his refusal to testify or turn over documents as part of the House investigation into the Capitol siege. The virtual hearing on Thursday focused on how quickly the prosecution should proceed, with prosecutors urging a swift pace and defense lawyers seeking to drag out the proceedings.
This is a straightforward case about whether or not the person showed up. "We don't see any reason to delay the trial dates," said a federal prosecutor in the US attorney's office in Washington, DC.
The case involves "complex constitutional issues" and should not be set a trial date, argued the defense lawyer.
He said he will address the timing for a trial in early December.
Speculation that a gag order similar to what was imposed on Roger Stone when he was prosecuted for obstructing Congress' investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election might be imposed on him has raised. Last week, after the indictment, Bannon threatened to make his case "misdemeanor from hell" for the Biden administration.
Going against him.
Trump has shown that he expects judges to be loyal to him. The former president and his allies have been ruled against by the judge.
Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell are accused of spreading false accusations that the voting equipment manufacturer rigged the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani, Powell and Lindell argued that their claims were protected political speech, and that they should be able to keep their defamation lawsuits going.
The defamation cases were allowed to proceed into discovery after the August ruling.
There is no blanket immunity for political statements. It is true that courts recognize the value of hyperbole in public debate, but it is not the law that false statements can't be made in an election.
Business Insider has an original article.
