WASHINGTON — Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday in the trial of Stephen K. Bannon, a former top adviser to President Donald J. Trump, as government lawyers sought to show that Mr. Bannon had repeatedly ignored warnings that he risked facing criminal charges of defying a subpoena.
Mr. Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of contempt of Congress after he refused to provide information to a House committee investigating the January 6 attack.
Wednesday’s trial largely focused on the testimony of Christine Amerling, the committee’s deputy staff director and general counsel since Jan. 6, who offered a detailed account of the committee’s efforts to compel Mr. Bannon to testify last year.
“There have been a number of public reports indicating that Mr. Bannon communicated with White House officials, including former President Trump, in the weeks leading up to the events of January 6,” Ms. Amerling said. “We wanted to find out what he could tell us about the connection between any of these events.”
Prosecutors continued to describe Mr. Bannon’s decision to block the committee as a simple case of contempt. By refusing to testify, Mr. Bannon not only “broke the nose” of the law, but also may have withheld significant information about a coordinated effort to disrupt certification in the 2020 election, said Amanda Vaughn, the prosecutor.
Key takeaways from the January 6 hearings
During questioning, Ms. Amerling told the court that Mr. Bannon would not agree to the committee’s requests for emails and other documents, even after receiving a letter threatening legal action.
Mr. Bannon never asked for the subpoena deadline to be extended, nor did the committee find his executive secrecy claims valid, Ms. Amerling added.
The committee has repeatedly identified Mr. Bannon as the architect of a plan to sow doubt that either Mr. Trump or Joseph R. Biden Jr. had accumulated enough electoral votes to win the election, setting up a scenario in which the House would have to decide the outcome.
On cross-examination, Mr. Evan Corcoran, Mr. Bannon’s lawyer, tried to paint the indictment as overtly political and appeared to suggest that it was driven by the whims of Representative Benny Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, the committee chairman.
The defense pointed to a July letter in which Mr. Thompson appeared willing to hear testimony from Mr. Bannon, provided he also provided the committee with documents it had requested. The letter lends credence to Mr. Bannon’s claims, his lawyers said, that his relationship with the committee was endless and that he had never officially ruled out speaking with committee members.
In his questioning, Mr. Corcoran appeared intent on portraying Ms. Amerling as a political operative, pressing her for details about her career working for Democrats on various congressional committees and her past political donations.
He also criticized Ms. Amerling for a book club she attended that included another prosecutor in the case.
The prosecution objected to efforts by Mr. Bannon’s lawyers to inject politics into the proceedings. Before testimony even began Wednesday, the judge in the case, Carl J. Nichols cautioned the defense against asking witnesses to talk about the motives of specific members of Congress.
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus, a forum for partisan politics,” the judge said.
Prosecutors also called Steven Hart, an FBI special agent, as a second witness. Mr. Hart, who met with Mr. Bannon’s former lawyer about the subpoena last year, presented social media posts in which Mr. Bannon appeared to celebrate his decision to ignore the subpoena.
Mr. Hart’s testimony appeared to contradict the argument made by Mr. Bannon’s lawyers that at the time, and even in recent months, Mr. Bannon believed he and the committee were still negotiating a deadline for his cooperation.
Mr. Bannon’s trial began this week after a series of rulings significantly limited his defense.
His lawyers offered a number of reasons why Mr. Bannon had refused to testify before Congress, only for Judge Nichols to systematically dismiss them.
Notably, Judge Nichols rejected the idea that Mr. Bannon could claim executive privilege granted by Mr. Trump that shields him from the subpoena. He also rejected a defense request to delay the trial until October over concerns that high-profile news about the House committee’s public hearings this summer could prejudice jurors.
The defense will have an opportunity to represent their side on Thursday. It is unclear whether Mr. Bannon or other witnesses will testify, and the case could end as early as this week.
Add Comment