Washington – Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former campaign aide and White House chief strategist, has been found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony issued by the House Select Committee Investigating the January 6 Attack on the Capitol.
A jury of 12 Washington, DC residents convicted Bannon after less than three hours of deliberation.
Bannon did not testify in his own defense and faces a maximum of one year in prison on each of the two charges. He will not be detained pending sentencing, which is scheduled for October 21.
The Justice Department charged Bannon with contempt after the House of Representatives voted to send a criminal referral for his failure to comply for prosecution last year.
Bannon pleaded not guilty, and what followed was a tumultuous legal battle between the defense and prosecutors over admissible evidence, Bannon’s efforts to delay the proceedings and ongoing televised hearings showing the select committee evidence of the House on January 6, which have made reference to Bannon. multiple times
The House committee, which concluded last summer hearing Thursday nightissued the citation in September 2021. The group sought information from Bannon in 17 key areas, ranging from his communications with former President Trump to his knowledge of coordination between far-right groups to carry out the attack on capitol
Sketch of William Hennessy Jr.
Prosecutors told the jury Bannon thought he was “above the law” and “turned his nose up” at congressional demands, while Bannon himself did not testify and his legal team did not call any witnesses.
The Jan. 6 committee’s chief counsel told jurors yes “very unusual” so that witnesses who receive a congressional subpoena do not comply directly, as Bannon did. Kristin Amerling, one of two witnesses called by prosecutors, said the committee considered its referral of Bannon to the Justice Department for criminal contempt of Congress a “very serious step.” They warned Bannon that he could be charged with a crime, she said, but he did not comply.
Bannon maintained at the time of his refusal that he could not testify because of concerns about executive privilege raised by the former president. Amerling, however, said the committee was never notified by Trump about this obstacle to removing Bannon, and that the committee would not have recognized such a claim anyway.
In a surprising few days before the trial began, Bannon told the committee on Jan. 6 that he would be willing to declare — publicly — after his lawyer, Robert Costello, said Trump had reversed course on those claims of executive privilege.
The jury was able to hear about the revocation in both witness questioning and closing statements, but the judge told jurors it had nothing to do with Bannon’s alleged earlier refusal to comply.
“Whether or not Mr. Bannon complies with the subpoena in the future is not relevant to whether or not he was in default in October,” Judge Carl Nichols told them.
Prosecutors also called the FBI agent assigned to the case, who testified that Bannon had allegedly made several online posts indicating his decision not to comply with the subpoena, in order to “be with Trump.”
“Our government only works if people come forward. It only works if people follow the rules. And it only works if people take responsibility and they don’t,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said in closing arguments.
“The defendant chooses loyalty to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” he said.
But the defense team argued that Bannon was innocent, that he thought conversations about the validity of Trump’s executive privilege claim were ongoing and flexible, and that he had not voluntarily defied Congress’ request. They told the jury he had possibly been “singled out” by the committee and Amerling because of politics.
“Even if you think in retrospect that the path that Mr. Bannon took and the path that his lawyer took … turned out to be a mistake,” attorney Evan Corcoran told the jury in his closing arguments , “it was not a crime.”
“The entire foundation of the government’s case rests on Ms. Amerling,” added the lawyer, who accused her of inaccuracies and later emphasized that Amerling and Gaston were former classmates and part of the same book club. Amerling said they had no personal relationship and the book club had nothing to do with his testimony.
Throughout the trial, but outside the presence of the jury, Bannon’s lawyers questioned the judge’s prior rulings, including one that would have prevented Bannon from saying he was only following the advice of counsel and that he believed the privilege of the executive applied to his decision. not testify before the commission. The defense also was not allowed to call members of the Jan. 6 House committee as witnesses, which they said put them at a disadvantage because they could not investigate the rationale for the subpoena and its timelines .
Outside court, Bannon told reporters he stood with Trump and the Constitution. His lawyers indicated they intend to appeal the decision, based on Nichols’ suggestion that he may have disagreed with a binding D.C. precedent that prevented Bannon from subpoenaing members of Congress to testify and prevented him from defending himself, based on the advice of a lawyer.
“Shame on this office … how far they went in this case,” Schoen said of the U.S. attorney.
Bannon is the first of two Trump allies accused of criminally defying the committee’s Jan. 6 demands to stand trial. Former trade adviser Peter Navarro also faces two counts of criminal contempt of Congress. He pleaded not guilty and will go on trial in November.
Prosecutors declined to file charges against two other former Trump White House officials the House referred for contempt. Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and adviser Dan Scavino were not charged with any wrongdoing after the committee on Jan. 6 said they failed to properly comply with a subpoena.
Assault on the United States Capitol
more more
Source link
