Thread by @ZoeTillman

Hello from Judge Carl Nichols' virtual courtroom, where a status hearing is about to start in the criminal contempt case against Steve Bannon. On last night's status report, which indicated quite a big gap in how both sides would like to proceed:

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1468051530553114627

Here's the dial-in info for Nichols:
Toll Free Number: 877-873-8017
Access Code: 8692421

They're starting with a discussion of what will be covered by a protective order as far as restrictions on how the parties can use evidence in the case and what they can make public and when

Bannon's lawyer Evan Corcoran is pushing back on the govt's request to limit how non-sensitive docs are used; govt wants to limit use to court proceedings, not allow total public disclosure. Nichols asks the govt to explain why those limits are needed...

...AUSA explains they're okay with Bannon using docs in the case, but given his/his lawyer's comments about wanting to share materials, make the case "hell" for those involved, limits are needed: "This case should be decided in the courtroom...not in the media"

Bannon's lawyers are arguing there's public interest in seeing how this case was handled, disputes their intent to litigate this in the media (they seem to be threading a needle here, since they're asking for freedom to share docs), says it raises complex constitutional issues

Dispute has come down to two categories of docs — law enforcement reports of witness interviews and internal Jan. 6 committee staff comms. Govt says they're okay with these being filed on the public docket, but unrestricted public release risks interfering with witnesses

Nichols is going to take this all under advisement and issue a protective order later

The judge moves on, asks Bannon's lawyers for a bit more detail about the "weighty" constitutional issues that they say they need time to litigate, which goes to why they're asking for a much later trial schedule than what the govt is asking for

Re: why Bannon needs a lot of time, lawyer David Schoen says their intended defense strategy potentially includes arguing:
- grand jury wasn't properly instructed re: Bannon relying on advice of counsel
- Jan. 6 committee lacks valid legislative purpose
- selective prosecution

Schoen says that Bannon offered to take the subpoena fight to "civil court" and if a judge ordered him to comply, he would — he doesn't say who exactly Bannon made that offer to or when that happened

Schoen lists other potential defenses/challenges to the prosecution they'd raise, including that DOJ deviated from normal practices and that members of Jan. 6 committee are conflicted — he refers to Rep. Thompson suing over Jan. 6, but note Thompson withdrew from that case

Nichols asks why Bannon needs 10 months. Schoen says it's not a magic number, it's based on the amount of time cases in the DC fed court take, they pulled schedule from other orders in other cases, need "extensive" time to litigate issues

Nichols poses flip side of that Q to the govt, asks why the urgency to get to trial by April, says he has to give Bannon args due consideration. AUSA says even Bannon's lawyer has noted public interest in the case, that's served by respecting speedy trial and getting a resolution

Nichols notes no Jan. 6 prosecution has gotten to trial yet, while recognizing those cases raise complex discovery issues. Says he's loathe to suggest he's splitting the difference between what the govt wants and what Bannon wants, but practically that's what he's leaning towards

Mark your calendar: Nichols sets Steve Bannon's trial to begin July 18, allowing for two weeks.

A real Goldilocks moment, the judge said he believed that Bannon's proposed October trial schedule was too slow, govt's April trial date was too soon

Schoen ends with sweeping remarks about Bannon et al. believing in the right to a speedy trial, but wanting a fair trial; that it's a serious case even though it's a misdemeanor charge, noting mandatory jail if convicted; insisting they'll win on advice of counsel defense

The next status report in Bannon's case is due Dec. 16, that's a wrap