If convicted of both charges stemming from his defiance of the Jan. 6 panel’s subpoena, he could face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison for each.
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have “>10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this article
- Read in app
Stephen K. Bannon is the first member of President Donald J. Trump’s inner circle to be brought to trial in a case related to the Capitol attack.
WASHINGTON — Lawyers sparred in closing arguments on Friday in the trial of Stephen K. Bannon, a onetime adviser to President Donald J. Trump, who faces two contempt of Congress charges after ignoring a subpoena to supply information to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
A jury will now decide whether Mr. Bannon is guilty of misdemeanor 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 be brought to trial in a case stemming from the investigation into the Capitol attack.
The Jan. 6 committee has said that Mr. Bannon is crucial to their inquiry because of his proximity to Mr. Trump and a statement he made on Jan. 5, 2021, when he said “all hell” would break loose, appearing to foretell the violence that erupted the day Congress was set to certify the results of the 2020 election.
In closing arguments, the prosecution painted a sober picture of the Capitol riot to emphasize the importance of the committee’s work. Mr. Bannon not only flouted the subpoena, lawyers said, but he also usurped the government’s authority because he believed Congress “was beneath him.”
“We are here because the defendant had contempt for Congress,” said Molly Gaston, a lawyer for the prosecution. “This is a situation in which the name of the crime tells you everything you need to know.”
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Card 1 of 9
Making a case against Trump. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is laying out evidence that could allow prosecutors to indict former President Donald J. Trump, though the path to a criminal trial is uncertain. Here are the main themes that have emerged so far:
An unsettling narrative. During the first hearing, the committee described in vivid detail what it characterized as an attempted coup orchestrated by the former president that culminated in the assault on the Capitol. At the heart of the gripping story were three main players: Mr. Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.
Creating election lies. In its second hearing, the panel showed how Mr. Trump ignored aides and advisers as he declared victory prematurely and relentlessly pressed claims of fraud he was told were wrong. “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said of Mr. Trump during a videotaped interview.
Pressuring Pence. Mr. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with a plan to overturn his loss even after he was told it was illegal, according to testimony laid out by the panel during the third hearing. The committee showed how Mr. Trump’s actions led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life.
Fake elector plan. The committee used its fourth hearing to detail how Mr. Trump was personally involved in a scheme to put forward fake electors. The panel also presented fresh details on how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.
Strong arming the Justice Dept. During the fifth hearing, the panel explored Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging and relentless scheme to misuse the Justice Department to keep himself in power. The panel also presented evidence that at least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons.
The surprise hearing. Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, delivered explosive testimony during the panel’s sixth session, saying that the president knew the crowd on Jan. 6 was armed, but wanted to loosen security. She also painted Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, as disengaged and unwilling to act as rioters approached the Capitol.
Planning a march. Mr. Trump planned to lead a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 but wanted it to look spontaneous, the committee revealed during its seventh hearing. Representative Liz Cheney also said that Mr. Trump had reached out to a witness in the panel’s investigation, and that the committee had informed the Justice Department of the approach.
A “complete dereliction” of duty. In the final public hearing of the summer, the panel accused the former president of dereliction of duty for failing to act to stop the Capitol assault. The committee documented how, over 187 minutes, Mr. Trump had ignored pleas to call off the mob and then refused to say the election was over even a day after the attack.
Mr. Bannon received clear instructions from the committee about how to comply with the subpoena and was warned about the consequences of not doing so, Ms. Gaston said. Yet he failed to produce documents, provide testimony or negotiate with the committee, she said, and offered invalid excuses for why he could not cooperate.
The 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 with Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” Ms. Gaston added. “The defendant chose defiance.”
The defense countered by portraying the events of Jan. 6 as irrelevant to the case and instead tried to poke technical holes in the prosecution’s argument, arguing that the deadlines to comply with the subpoena were not fixed. A lawyer for Mr. Bannon, M. Evan Corcoran, contended that one of the government’s witnesses, Kristin Amerling, the Jan. committee’s chief counsel, was biased given that she and Ms. Gaston had been in 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 partisanship, saying that Ms. Amerling was politically motivated because she had spent years working for Democrats in Congress. He also cast the charge as an overreach by people with political power, but the judge stopped him as he tried to make a broader point that the legislative branch and presidency are controlled by Democrats.
The closing arguments came hours after the Jan. 6 committee held a public hearing that included audio of Mr. Bannon, days before the 2020 election, describing how Mr. Trump would spread the false claim of a stolen contest.
“He’s going to declare victory,” Mr. Bannon said in a recording that was made public last week by Mother Jones. “But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just going to say he’s a winner.”
On Thursday, the defense asked the judge to acquit Mr. Bannon and opted not to bring witnesses or evidence before jurors, relying instead on its cross-examinations 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 committee sought to charge with contempt, the Justice Department brought charges against Mr. Bannon and another former adviser to Mr. Trump, Peter Navarro, who had resisted their subpoenas from the start and never negotiated with the committee.
It is unclear when the jury will reach a verdict. Jurors were instructed to stay open-minded, but during juror selection on Monday, a member of the jury pool speculated aloud about the outcome of the case.
“Contempt seems pretty straightforward,” she said.
Source: nytimes.com
