It’s apparent that Bannon could shed more light on that day than what is publicly known. I think you know and understand why that is a problem for democracy haters like trump and his sheep.
I think it's clear that we already know the gist of the conversations between Trump and Bannon, that Bannon only encouraged Trump to stage a large PEACEFUL and patriotic protest by his supporters, to draw attention to the election fraud issue, in a way the liberal media (who were suppressing evidence of election fraud) could not ignore. The FBI has already made clear in its reports that there was not a single firearm seized in or around the Capitol building, or anywhere in Washington Square. No firearms, no armed "insurrection", that lying Democrat/liberal media narrative completely disproven as unquestionably false. The FBI has not charged a single person with "insurrection". The lying Democrat narrative again instantly disproven.
We also know, from the FBI's own investigative reports, that of the 60 or so charged with violence or vandalism: 1) at least 40 of the 60 were either "un-indicted co-conspirator" undercover FBI agents who were stoking violence and trying to get Trump supporters to follow them into violence (entrapment). And... 2) about 20 of them were John Earle Sullivan and his BLM/Antifa group, who were also only pretending to be Trump supporters, trying to either trick Trump supporters into violence, or get them blamed for BLM/Antifa's violence. So an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the 60 involved in violence and rioting were not Trump supporters, but those trying to frame them. Did Steve Bannon organize them? Why is there not the same curiosity and pursuit of evidence by Democrats on the committee of THESE people, as there is with their witch hunt against Bannon? Ah. Because it doesn't fit their slanderous lying narrative.
It's clear that Steve Bannon is a person that both the liberal media and Democrat leadership love to portray as a sinister boogeyman, but that as with every president during their term, Trump's communications with those who advised him in that period are confidential, just as they were with every other past president and their advisors. If going forward ,advisors to presidents know their conversations will be later exposed, they simply will not give presidents the best and most honest advice in the future, and will only discuss what will protect them from prosecution or embarassment at a later date if those conversations are made public.
