WASHINGTON — Lawyers clashed in closing arguments Friday in the trial of Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald J. Trump, who faces two counts of contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena to provide information to a House committee investigating Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
A jury will now decide whether Mr. Bannon is guilty of crimes punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison. Mr. Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, is the first member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle to stand trial in a case stemming from the investigation into the Capitol attack.
The panel on Jan. 6 said Mr. Bannon was crucial to their investigation because of his closeness to Mr. Trump and a statement he made on Jan. 5, 2021, when he said “all hell” would break loose. appeared to foreshadow the violence that erupted on the day Congress was supposed to certify the results of the 2020 election.
In closing arguments, the prosecution painted a sober picture of the Capitol riot to underscore the importance of the committee’s work. Mr. Bannon not only ignored the subpoena, lawyers said, but also usurped the government’s power because he believed Congress was “beneath him.”
“We’re here because the defendant was in contempt of Congress,” said Molly Gaston, a prosecuting attorney. “This is a situation where the name of the crime tells you everything you need to know.”
Key takeaways from the January 6 hearings
Mr. Bannon was given clear instructions by the committee on how to comply with the subpoena and was warned of the consequences if he did not, Ms. Gaston said. However, he failed to produce documents, testify or negotiate with the commission, she said, and offered invalid excuses as to why he could not cooperate.
Government, prosecutors said, “only works when people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they don’t.
“The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over upholding the law,” Ms Gaston added. “The accused chose to disobey.”
The defense countered by presenting the events of January 6 as irrelevant to the case and instead tried to poke technical holes in the prosecution’s arguments, claiming that the time limits for serving the subpoena were not fixed. Mr. Bannon’s lawyer, M. Evan Corcoran, argued that one of the government’s witnesses, Christine Amerling, the committee’s chief counsel since January, was biased, given that she and Ms. Gaston had been in a and the same book club.
“You have to give Steve Bannon the benefit of the doubt,” Mr. Corcoran said.
Mr. Corcoran reiterated that the case was tainted by bias, saying that Ms. Amerling was politically motivated because she had spent years working for Democrats in Congress. He also characterized the charge as an abuse of power by people with political power, but the judge suspended it as he tried to make a broader point that the legislature and the presidency are controlled by Democrats.
The closing arguments came hours after the committee on January 6 held a public hearing that included an audio recording of Mr. Bannon, days before the 2020 election, describing how Mr. Trump would spread the false allegation of a stolen contest.
“He will declare victory,” Mr. Bannon said in a recording that was published last week by Mother Jones. “But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’ll just say he’s a winner.”
On Thursday, the defense asked the judge to acquit Mr. Bannon and chose not to present any witnesses or evidence to the jury, relying instead on its cross-examination of the prosecution’s two witnesses. Mr. Bannon also chose not to testify, a departure from the defense’s suggestion last week that he would.
Of the former White House officials the panel tried to charge in contempt, the Justice Department brought charges against Mr. Bannon and another former adviser to Mr. Trump, Peter Navarro, who resisted their subpoenas from the start and never did not negotiate with the commission.
It is not clear when the jury will reach a verdict. Jurors were instructed to remain open-minded, but during jury selection Monday, a juror speculated aloud about the outcome of the case.
“Contempt seems pretty simple,” she said.
Add Comment