The first day of testimony in the trial Steve Bannon, an aide to former President Donald Trump, has ended.
Bannon is on trial on contempt of Congress charges for failing to comply with subpoenas from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.
Bannon has pleaded not guilty. If found guilty, each carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail.
Bannon’s case is a major test of what leverage Congress has when a witness evades a House subpoena.
Our live coverage has ended. Scroll through the posts below to see how the first day of testimony in Bannon’s trial played out.
30 Posts
Here are the key moments from the first day of Steve Bannon's trial
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
Steve Bannon, an aide to former President Donald Trump, is on trial on contempt of Congress charges for failing to comply with subpoenas from the House committee investigating the insurrection.
Here are the key moments from the first day of his trial:
Prosecutor tells the jury Bannon “chose to show his contempt for Congress’ authority and its processes”: In her opening statement, Justice Department prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that Bannon “prevented the government from getting the important information it needed from him.” She said, “Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan 6, 2021,” while describing the subpoena as a “legally enforceable order.” Vaughn added, “Because it was a subpoena, Congress was entitled to the information it sought. It wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request. It wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory,” she said. By ignoring Congress’ orders for testimony, even after the House rejected his reasons for not cooperating, Bannon “prevented the government from getting the important information it needed from him,” Vaughn said. She said that the jury will see how Bannon “chose to show his contempt for Congress’ authority and its processes.”
Prosecutor: This case is about Bannon “thumbing his nose” at government process: As prosecutor Vaughn finished up the government’s opening statement, she distilled what the prosecution thinks this case is about: “This case is about the defendant thumbing his nose at the orderly process of our government.” Vaughn recounted the warnings Bannon received from the committee as the subpoena deadlines approached and how the committee rejected the arguments he had put forward for not cooperating. “This is not a case of mistake,” Vaughn said. “The defendant didn’t get the date wrong. He didn’t get confused on where to go. He didn’t get stuck on a broken down metro car. He just refused to follow the rules.”
Bannon’s lawyer tells jury “he’s innocent of these charges”: Evan Corcoran, Bannon’s lawyer, began the defense’s opening statement by telling the jury that Bannon is “innocent of these charges.” He briefly outlined Bannon’s biography, including his time in the Navy and the career he’s had in media. “He was a political thinker and a political strategist, and he helped a candidate run for the presidency,” Corcoran said, while touting Bannon as a top adviser to former President Trump. Corcoran noted the success of Bannon’s podcast (a term Corcoran defined for the jury as when “the word iPod and broadcast are put together”) and said that the day before the attack on Capitol, most shows were reporting that there might be violence at the Capitol the next day. Corcoran then turned to the subpoena, which he noted was issued eight months later.
Defense: Evidence will show that there “was no ignoring the subpoena”: As he continued his opening statement, Corcoran previewed a defense that would claim that there “was no ignoring the subpoena.” Corcoran went through the timeline around the subpoena, but not without a brief detour into a discussion of the role politics was playing. “Politics is the lifeblood of the US House of Representatives,” he said, while asserting that politics also affect staff members in Congress. Turning back to the subpoena, Corcoran noted the communications between the select committee’s chief counsel, Kristin Amerling, and Bannon’s lawyer Robert Costello. “The evidence is going to show there is direct engagement” between the committee staff member and Bannon’s attorney, Corcoran said. “There was no ignoring the subpoena. There will be no evidence showing that.”
DOJ questions first witness, Jan. 6 committee staffer, about the purpose of House panel: Prosecutor Vaughn asked the first witness, House committee staffer Kristin Amerling, about the purpose of the House Jan. 6 committee and how committees function as a part of Congress. After several basic questions about how Congress is set up and how it uses committees in the process to craft laws, Vaughn’s questions turned to the specific objectives of the House Jan. 6 Committee itself. “The committee is tasked with providing the public a complete account of what happened on that day, why it happened and it is also tasked with evaluating recommendations on laws, regulations, rules policies that will help make sure something like that never happens again,” Amerling testified.
House staffer testifies about the time crunch facing the Jan. 6 committee: Amid questions about how the House Jan. 6 committee works and the mechanics of its subpoenas, the Department of Justice asked House staffer Amerling to elaborate on the time crunch the committee is facing. In answers to questions about when the committee launched and when it will expire, Amerling testified that it only has about a year and half to do its work. Amerling said that there is an “urgency” to the committee’s work, given its focus on a violent assault on the US Capitol and law enforcement. “We have a limited amount of time to gather information,” Amerling said, while noting that “the threat to our democratic institutions continues.”
Link Copied!
Jury is done for the day
The court is in recess and the jury is done for the day in the trial of former President Trump aide Steve Bannon,
US District Judge Carl Nichols noted that they had reached a natural point for breaking for the day and sent the jury home for the evening.
Amerling goes over why committee was interested in Bannon
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn’s questioning of House staffer Kristin Amerling covered why the Jan. 6 committee was interested in getting information from Steve Bannon.
Amerling said Bannon was participating in efforts to “persuade the public” that the election was illegitimate. She also noted statements he had made on his podcast, including his Jan. 6 remark that “all hell” was going to “break loose” the next day.
US District Judge Carl Nichols stepped in to tell the jury that Amerling’s testimony should not be taken by the jury as establishing that it was true those things happened. Rather, Nichols said, she is allowed to testify about why the committee believed they wanted to talk to him.
Link Copied!
House staffer testifies about the time crunch facing the Jan. 6 committee
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
Amid questions about how the House Jan. 6 committee works and the mechanics of its subpoenas, the Department of Justice asked House staffer Kristin Amerling to elaborate on the time crunch the committee is facing.
In answers to questions about when the committee launched and when it will expire, Amerling testified that it only has about a year and half to do its work.
Amerling said that there is an “urgency” to the committee’s work, given its focus on a violent assault on the US Capitol and law enforcement.
Link Copied!
DOJ asks Jan. 6 committee staffer about the purpose of House panel
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Witnesses Stephen Ayres and and Jason Van Tatenhove prepare to testify before the January 6 committee on July 12.
(Sarah Silbiger/Pool/AFP/Getty Images)
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked the first witness, House committee staffer Kristin Amerling, about the purpose of the House Jan. 6 committee and how committees function as a part of Congress.
After several basic questions about how Congress is set up and how it uses committees in the process to craft laws, Vaughn’s questions turned to the specific objectives of the House Jan. 6 Committee itself.
Link Copied!
First witness in Bannon trial takes the stand
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Kristin Amerling, deputy staff director and general counsel of the House Jan. 6 committee, has taken the stand, kicking off witness testimony in Steve Bannon’s trial.
Amerling’s testimony began after US District Judge Carl Nichols punted on the Bannon team’s request that he allow them to present to the jury recent letters — from Bannon’s lawyer and former President Trump — indicating Bannon would now appear before the committee.
Nichols said that after the government does its questioning of Amerling, he’ll consider whether the defense can use the letters in its cross-examination.
Link Copied!
Before first witness is called, more arguments about evidence
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
After a brief recess following opening statements, both sides had points to raise with the judge before the jury starts hearing testimony from witnesses.
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn wanted to make clear for the record that the House staffers appearing as witnesses were doing so voluntarily, and that any relevancy objections the DOJ lodges about their testimony will also be an objection under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.
Steve Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, had several issues he wants to bring to the judge’s attention. He said Kristin Amerling, the House staffer, can’t testify on decision-making, as Schoen reiterated Bannon’s request that Jan. 6 House committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (who today announced a positive Covid test) testify at trial. Judge Carl Nichols denied that request without prejudice, giving Bannon’s team the option to bring the request up again later in the proceedings.
Then Schoen brought up the recent letters from former President Donald Trump and Bannon attorney, Robert Costello, indicating that Bannon can now testify before the committee. Schoen argued that the government has opened the door for those letters to be admitted evidence.
Link Copied!
Bannon's attorney says defense will show congressional subpoena deadline wasn't firm
From CNN's Tierney Sneed and Katelyn Polantz
Before Evan Corcoran, Steve Bannon’s attorney, finished his opening statement, he was interrupted with objections from the government.
Corcoran took aim at the government’s case: “The government wants you to believe that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up at a congressional hearing room.”
Corcoran told the jury that the evidence will be “crystal clear” that “no one, no one believed Steve Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021.”
He suggested that the government would not be able to meet is burden of proof to show that Bannon willfully defaulted on the subpoena.
He said the jury will “hear that date was the subject of ongoing negotiations and discussions,” as he pointed specifically to an October letter from Bannon’s attorney asking for another week on the subpoena’s deadline.
Corcoran turned to an argument about the contempt resolution, prompting an objection from Vaughn.
Corcoran restarted after a brief discussion under seal — out of earshot of the public or the jury — by noting that the contempt resolution passed by a slim majority
“At the end of the trial, you’ll be the only ones who decide if the government has met its burden of proof,” Corcoran said.
A question he put forward to the jury — asking them, “is this piece of evidence affected by politics?” — prompted another objection from Vaughn.
He then ended his opening statement by asking the jury to find Bannon innocent.
Link Copied!
Defense: Evidence will show that there "was no ignoring the subpoena"
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
As he continued his opening statement, Steve Bannon attorney Evan Corcoran previewed a defense that would claim that there “was no ignoring the subpoena.”
Corcoran went through the timeline around the subpoena, but not without a brief detour into a discussion of the role politics was playing.
Turning back to the subpoena, Corcoran noted the communications between the select committee’s chief counsel, Kristin Amerling, and Bannon’s lawyer Robert Costello.
“The evidence is going to show there is direct engagement” between the committee staff member and Bannon’s attorney, Corcoran said.
“There was no ignoring the subpoena. There will be no evidence showing that.”
Link Copied!
Bannon’s lawyer tells jury "he's innocent of these charges"
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Steve Bannon, joined by lawyer Evan Corcoran, speaks to crowds outside of the courthouse on Monday.
(Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/The Washington Post/Getty Images/File)
Evan Corcoran, Steve Bannon’s lawyer, began the defense’s opening statement by telling the jury that Bannon is “innocent of these charges.”
He briefly outlined Bannon’s biography, including his time in the Navy and the career he’s had in media.
Corcoran noted the success of Bannon’s podcast (a term Corcoran defined for the jury as when “the word iPod and broadcast are put together”) and said that the day before the attack on Capitol, most shows were reporting that there might be violence at the Capitol the next day.
Corcoran then turned to the subpoena, which he noted was issued eight months later.
Bannon is on trial on two criminal charges for his failure to comply with the House’s Jan. 6, 2021, investigation. Both charges the Trump ally is facing are misdemeanors. But if he is found guilty, each carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail.
Link Copied!
DOJ says it will show why Congress was entitled to information from Bannon
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Laying out what the government will present during the trial, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn previewed the testimony of Kristin Amerling, a House committee staffer.
Amerling will explain, Vaughn said, that “to figure out what laws will be helpful, Congress has to do research” and that committees are set up for that purpose. Vaughn also outlined how committees operate: making voluntary requests for information, reading reports, reading information on the internet.
Committees can also issue subpoenas, Vaughn said, while noting that the House Jan. 6 Committee “was set up to investigate the causes and events of Jan. 6.”
Among the areas the committee was looking into; the effort to delay or stop the 2020 election results from being finalized, and how the breach of the Capitol came about, Vaughn said.
Vaughn also detailed why Bannon was of interest to the committee, including his work for the Trump White House, his continued ties to the former president, and his commentary on his podcast.
Vaughn said that the committee had gathered information related to Bannon including who may been in touch with, as Vaughn pointed to meetings with members of Congress, people working with Trump campaign, with Trump himself, and people wanting to block the election results.
Link Copied!
Prosecutor: This case is about Bannon "thumbing his nose" at government process
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
As prosecutor Amanda Vaughn finished up the government’s opening statement, she distilled what the prosecution thinks this case is about: “This case is about the defendant thumbing his nose at the orderly process of our government.”
Vaughn recounted the warnings Steve Bannon received from the committee as the subpoena deadlines approached and how the committee rejected the arguments he had put forward for not cooperating.
She told the jury that the government can’t function if citizens don’t follow its rules. She asked the jury to return a guilty verdict, telling the jurors that it should find that “the defendant showed his contempt for the US congress, US government, and that he’s guilty.”
Link Copied!
Prosecutor tells the jury Bannon "chose to show his contempt for Congress’ authority and its processes"
From CNN's Tierney Sneed and Katelyn Polantz
(Patrick Semansky/AP)
In her opening statement, Justice Department prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that Bannon “prevented the government from getting the important information it needed from him.”
“Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan 6, 2021,” Vaughn said, while describing the subpoena as a “legally enforceable order.”
By ignoring Congress’ orders for testimony, even after the House rejected his reasons for not cooperating, Bannon “prevented the government from getting the important information it needed from him,” Vaughn said.
She said that the jury will see how Bannon “chose to show his contempt for Congress’ authority and its processes.”
Link Copied!
Opening statements are underway
Opening statements have started in the trial of former President Trump aide Steve Bannon, with prosecutor Amanda Vaughn presenting for the government.
Jurors being escorted into courtroom for swearing in
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
At 2:15 p.m. ET, former President Trump aide Steve Bannon’s trial proceedings resumed.
The jurors are being escorted into the courtroom for the swearing in.
Link Copied!
Steve Bannon's trial now has a jury. Here's what we know about them.
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz
Steve Bannon’s trial on contempt of Congress charges now has a jury.
Fourteen jurors — 9 men and 5 women — will be sworn in shortly at the federal district courthouse in Washington, DC, now.
The jury includes a State Department employee, an art salesman, a NASA contractor, a doctor, an architect and a handful of DC government employees.
Some of the jurors have extensive previous experience serving on juries, according to their statements in court yesterday.
The jury has 14 people because two alternates are in the pool, and won’t be disclosed publicly until deliberations.
Link Copied!
Proceedings moving to final phase of jury selection
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
The proceedings are now moving on to the final phase of jury selection, in which the potential pool of 22 will be whittled down to 12 jurors and two alternates.
The parties were able to agree to a plan that will allow them to move on from the evidence dispute that dominated the morning.
Link Copied!
The trial proceedings have resumed
Former President Trump aide Steve Bannon’s trial proceedings have resumed following a lunchtime recess.
US District Judge Carl Nichols had called a recess until at least 1 p.m. ET, with the instruction that the parties figure out certain things about what they intend to present to the jury.
Link Copied!
Here's a look inside the courtroom where Steve Bannon is on trial
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
Here’s a look at artist Bill Hennessy’s sketch from Tuesday’s federal court proceedings during former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s trial on charges of contempt of Congress.
There are no cameras allowed in the federal courtroom in Washington, DC, but the artist’s sketch provides a glimpse of the events unfolding inside.
The sketch shows Bannon’s defense attorney David Schoen and prosecutor Amanda Vaughn speaking before US District Judge Carl Nichols as Bannon sits behind them.
The judge called a recess until at least 1 p.m. ET, with the instruction that the parties figure out certain things about what they intend to present to the jury.
Here are zoomed in versions of the sketch:
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
Link Copied!
Judge asks Bannon's team to settle on his arguments for why he thought subpoena deadlines were flexible
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
Steve Bannon defense attorney David Schoen and prosecutor Amanda Vaughn argue before US District Judge Carl Nichols on Tuesday.
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
Prior to going on recess, Judge Carl Nichols appeared inclined to rule that the October 2021 communications between the committee and Steve Bannon could be admitted at trial, but only if the portions of the letters discussing privilege are redacted.
“The government should redact from the letters that it intends to introduce to its witnesses today any discussion of privilege altogether,” Nichols said.
He went on to lay out the specific portions of the letters that would need to be redacted, with prosecutor Amanda Vaughn also weighing in. As the redactions were being discussed, Bannon’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, interjected to say that he was concerned about “redactions on the fly.” Bannon’s team suggested that they had not yet settled on what they would proffer about why Bannon thought the return dates of the subpoenas were flexible.
What happens next: Judge Nichols wants the Bannon team to tell him by 1 p.m. ET what Bannon would argue on that point and whether Bannon could argue that discussions about executive privilege were one of the reasons he believed that the subpoena deadlines were still in flux. If Bannon was to make that argument, Nichols said, the October letters would likely be admissible in their entirety.
Link Copied!
Judge opens door to "modest" delay in Bannon trial
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
Judge Carl Nichols said it was possible that there could be a “modest” delay in the trial, as the parties continue to hash out a disagreement about certain evidence.
“I’m not foreclosing the possibility of delaying the trial by a day just to make sure we get our ducks in a row,” Nichols said Tuesday.
The judge called a recess until 1 p.m. ET, with the instruction that the parties figure out certain things about what they intend to present to the jury.
Link Copied!
Court is back in session
Proceedings in Steve Bannon’s case have started after a short break.
The judge gaveled in at 10:35 a.m. ET.
Link Copied!
Proceedings are in recess
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
At around 10:17 a.m. ET, the proceedings went on a recess and Judge Carl Nichols said that when he returns, he will hand down his ruling on the admissibility of the Jan. 6 House committee letters to Steve Bannon.
Link Copied!
Bannon team again attempts to delay trial
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
Before the arguments wrapped up, Steve Bannon’s team made another Hail Mary attempt at delaying the trial.
Bannon’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, argued that because of “seismic shift” of the parties’ understanding of what evidence is allowed in the trial, the trial should be postponed for one month.
Link Copied!
Judge considering whether 2021 letters from Bennie Thompson to Bannon's team about subpoena are admissible
From CNN's Tierney Sneed
US District Judge Carl J. Nichols presides over the Bannon's case on Monday.
(Sketch by Bill Hennessy)
The second day of Steve Bannon’s trial is now underway in Washington. He is facing two criminal charges for his failure to comply with the House’s Jan. 6, 2021, investigation 10 months after receiving subpoenas from the select committee.
Before conducting the final phase of jury selection, in which the pool of potential jurors will be whittled down from 22 to 12 plus two alternates, Judge Carl Nichols is hearing arguments on an evidentiary dispute still pending.
Specifically, the judge is considering whether October 2021 letters from House Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson to Steve Bannon’s team about the subpoena are admissible. Bannon’s lawyers now want the letters excluded from the trial.
Signaling some sympathy with Bannon’s arguments, Nichols is raising concerns about admitting the letters in full, because they include discussions of executive privilege, a topic Nichols has already ruled is largely irrelevant for trial. He has asked prosecutors what he should to prevent the jury from being confused by them.
The government is arguing that the letters are relevant to a key issue that will be before the jury to decide: whether Bannon had reason to believe that the deadlines on the subpoena were flexible because negotiations around his cooperation were still ongoing.
The parties now are debating proposals to either enter redacted versions of the letters, to include only the parts of the communications that to speak to that question, or to enter a stipulation agreed to by the two sides about the letters.
Link Copied!
Steve Bannon's trial is expected to go quickly
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Steve Bannon walks to a federal court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Proceedings began Monday with jury selection at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Twenty-two potential jurors have been found, and the 12 that make up the jury and two alternates will be selected Tuesday morning. Opening statements will begin soon after.
Remember: The case is a major test of what leverage Congress has when a witness evades a House subpoena. Bannon’s is the first of two similar House select committee subpoena cases to head to trial; a contempt case against former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is still in its early stages.
Prosecutors pledge that their case against Bannon will be presented succinctly, over just a few days, with only two or three prosecution witnesses. That list includes House committee investigators.
It’s unknown how extensive Bannon’s defense will be, or if he will want to take the stand in his own defense. He will not be able to force House members to testify, the judge has said.
Early in the case, Bannon vowed to make the proceedings the “misdemeanor from hell for (Attorney General) Merrick Garland, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and (President) Joe Biden.” But at a recent court hearing, his defense attorney David Schoen complained, “What’s the point of going to trial here if there is no defense?”
So far, US District Judge Carl J. Nichols has overwhelmingly sided with the Justice Department on what evidence the jury can hear, cutting off Bannon’s ability to try to defer to advice his attorney gave him or to use internal DOJ policies on presidential advisers that he hoped might protect him.
Bannon’s ability to bring up arguments about executive privilege will be, at best, severely limited. Bannon was not a government official during the period the committee is probing.
Jurors were asked about the Jan. 6 House investigation
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
During the first portion of Monday’s jury selection process, potential jurors were not been pressed about their general feelings about Steve Bannon or former President Trump.
They were, however, being asked about their news consumption of the House investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection and about this case itself. Some said they’d consumed a little of the House hearings, if that.
Many of the potential jurors had said they’d heard minimally about Bannon’s case, yet a large number of them had taken in at least some of the select committee’s public hearings. But awareness alone wasn’t enough for them to be tossed from the jury pool.
Link Copied!
Here are key things to know about Bannon's case as opening statements are set to begin
From CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed
Steve Bannon arrives at federal court for his trial on Tuesday.
The polarizing long-time Trump ally has always been at the top of the Jan. 6 witness list for House investigators. But Justice Department prosecutors say the trial is intended to punish Bannon for noncompliance with the subpoenas, rather than coerce him into sharing information.
Here are key things to know about the case as opening statements begin:
Why the case matters: The case is a major test of what leverage Congress has when a witness evades a House subpoena. Bannon’s is the first of two similar House select committee subpoena cases to head to trial; a contempt case against former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is still in its early stages.
Bannon’s trial also carries special relevance for the House panel as it continues to negotiate bringing in additional witnesses, and as it prepares for a major primetime hearing Thursday night intended to spotlight what committee members have called former President Donald Trump’s “dereliction of duty” on January 6.
How the trial could unfold: Prosecutors pledge that their case against Bannon will be presented succinctly, over just a few days, with only two or three prosecution witnesses. That list includes House committee investigators.
It’s unknown how extensive Bannon’s defense will be, or if he will want to take the stand in his own defense. He will not be able to force House members to testify, the judge has said.
Early in the case, Bannon vowed to make the proceedings the “misdemeanor from hell for (Attorney General) Merrick Garland, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and (President) Joe Biden.” But at a recent court hearing, his defense attorney David Schoen complained, “What’s the point of going to trial here if there is no defense?”
Bannon’s attempts to stop the trial: Bannon — who accepted an 11th-hour pardon from Trump in 2021 as he was facing conspiracy wire fraud and money laundering charges in Manhattan’s federal court related to a border wall fundraising scheme — has made a series of attempts in court in recent days to stop the trial, to fashion more of a defense, or to prepare for possible appeals.
So far, US District Judge Carl Nichols has overwhelmingly sided with the Justice Department on what evidence the jury can hear, cutting off Bannon’s ability to try to defer to advice his attorney gave him or to use internal DOJ policies on presidential advisers that he hoped might protect him.
In recent weeks, Trump indicated he wanted to waive any executive privilege that might have applied to Bannon, and Bannon suggested he may be interested in speaking with the House committee — a series of events that Bannon’s team now wants to try to show to the jury. But his ability to bring up arguments about executive privilege will be, at best, severely limited. Bannon was not a government official during the period the committee is probing.
The charges: A federal grand jury indicted the right-wing figure in November on two counts of criminal contempt — one for his failure to provide testimony demanded by the House select committee’s subpoena in the fall and the other for his failure to produce documents. A key issue at trial will be whether the jury agrees with prosecutors and the House that Bannon’s October subpoena deadlines were final, and that he deliberately disregarded them.
Both charges he faces are misdemeanors. But if he is found guilty, each carries a mandatory minimum of 30 days in jail.
Prosecutors argue that Bannon's willingness to testify before Jan. 6 committee doesn't change the case
From CNN's Sara Murray
Steve Bannon arrives to a courthouse in Washington, DC, on Friday.
(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Steve Bannon — who is on trial because he defied a congressional subpoena — told the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that he is now willing to testify, ideally at a public hearing, according to a letter obtained by CNN. But in a court filing, federal prosecutors called Bannon’s reversal a “last-minute” effort that doesn’t change the case against him, pointing out that he has not produced subpoenaed records.
“The Defendant’s last-minute efforts to testify almost nine months after his default — he has still made no effort to produce records — are irrelevant to whether he willfully refused to comply in October 2021 with the Select Committee’s subpoena,” prosecutors wrote.
Bannon’s reversal came after he received a letter from former President Donald Trump waiving executive privilege, although both the House select committee and federal prosecutors contend that privilege claim never gave Bannon carte blanche to ignore a congressional subpoena in the first place.
Bannon was charged last year with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He has argued that he was free to ignore his congressional subpoena in order to protect Trump’s potential privilege claims. But federal prosecutors and other legal experts have argued that privilege does not apply to Bannon — who left his White House job as chief strategist years before the Capitol riot — and did not give him the authority to refuse to provide any documents or testimony to the committee.
The Jan. 6 committee was interested in speaking to Bannon about his communications with Trump in December 2020, when Bannon reportedly urged him to focus on the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results. Committee members were also interested in Bannon’s comments in the run-up to the Capitol insurrection, including a podcast on Jan. 5 in which he predicted, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
Link Copied!
Federal judge limits defenses that Bannon can use in his trial
From CNN's Tierney Sneed and Holmes Lybrand
Steve Bannon arrives to court on Friday.
(Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)
A federal judge on July 11 denied a request by Steve Bannon for his contempt-of-Congress trial to be delayed from its July 18 start date and severely limited the defenses that the former Donald Trump adviser could put forward at the trial.
On presenting evidence about the Justice Department
US District Judge Carl Nichols curtailed Bannon’s efforts to introduce at trial certain evidence regarding supposed assertions of executive privilege from former President Donald Trump and evidence about how the Justice Department, in internal documents, viewed executive privilege claims when deciding whether to prosecute a contempt referral from Congress.
Nichols, a Trump appointee, said the evidence was excluded to the extent that Bannon wanted to use it to show that he was legally excused from complying with a House Jan. 6 committee subpoena or that he thought he was legally excused from complying with it. Bannon was indicted on contempt-of-Congress charges last year for failing to comply with the subpoena and has pleaded not guilty.
Nichols said that Bannon may be allowed to present that evidence to the jury if he can show it will get at whether he intentionally or deliberately failed to comply with the subpoena. For example, the judge said he may be allowed to present that evidence if it shows that he thought that the deadline for complying of the subpoena was no longer valid.
Nichols stressed he was bound by an appellate court precedent that provided a narrow definition of what the government had to prove about Bannon’s intentions when he did not comply with the subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 committee. The judge rejected Bannon’s arguments that the government would need to prove at trial that Bannon knew his non-compliance was wrong or unlawful. Nichols instead adopted the government’s view that prosecutors need only to prove that Bannon was deliberate and intentional in not deciding to comply with the subpoena.
The hearing came after it was revealed in court filings overnight that the FBI interviewed Trump’s attorney two weeks ago, a previously unknown development that could significantly shape the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
On the public authority defense
Nichols said Monday that Bannon could not put forward evidence concerning what is known as a public authority defense, as Bannon had argued that in not cooperating with the subpoena, he was following the instructions from Trump.
Nichols said Bannon’s argument for the inclusion of that evidence failed for two reasons: One, that Trump, as a former president, is no longer a government official. And secondly, Nichols said that Trump never instructed Bannon not to show up all together for the subpoenaed testimony.
On Bannon arguing he was misled by government
Nichols also knocked down a potential defense from Bannon known as entrapment by estoppel, in which a defendant argues he or she had been misled by government statements to believe their conduct was legal. Bannon had sought to point to internal Justice Department documents outlining its views on executive privilege to argue that he was under the impression that Trump’s privilege assertions precluded him from testifying. Nichols said that the Justice Department documents Bannon pointed to did not address a witness in his particular circumstance.
Additionally, Nichols hamstrung a defense Bannon had signaled he’d put forward about supposed procedural defects in how the House Jan. 6 committee was assembled. The judge also said that Bannon could not present evidence at trial that it was not in compliance with certain House rules about its constitution.
