The government, seeking to hold Mr. Bannon to account for defying a subpoena from Congress, wrapped up its case after calling just two witnesses.
-
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, a former top adviser to President Donald J. Trump, arrived at court on Wednesday in Washington.
WASHINGTON — The prosecution rested its case on 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 in flouting a subpoena.
Mr. Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of contempt of Congress after he refused to provide information to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.
The trial on Wednesday largely centered on the testimony of Kristin Amerling, the deputy staff director and chief counsel to the Jan. 6 committee, who offered a detailed accounting of the committee’s attempts to compel Mr. Bannon to testify last year.
Prosecutors continued to describe Mr. Bannon’s decision to stonewall the committee as a straightforward case of contempt. By refusing to testify, Mr. Bannon not only “thumbed his nose” at the law, but he also may have withheld significant information about the coordinated effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election, Amanda Vaughn, a prosecutor, said.
During questioning, Ms. Amerling told the court that Mr. Bannon refused to acquiesce to the committee’s requests for emails and other documents even after receiving a letter threatening legal action.
Mr. Bannon never asked that the deadline for the subpoena be extended, nor did the committee consider his claim of executive privilege to be 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 amassed enough electoral votes to win the election, creating a scenario in which the House would then have had to decide the outcome.
On cross-examination, M. Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Mr. Bannon, sought to paint the indictment as nakedly political.
In his questioning of Ms. Amerling, Mr. Corcoran appeared to suggest she was a political operative, pressing her for details about her career working for Democrats on various congressional committees and her past donations.
Mr. Corcoran also asked Ms. Amerling about a book club she has attended in which a prosecutor in the case is also a member.
Prosecutors also called Stephen Hart, an F.B.I. special agent, as a second witness. Mr. Hart, who helped investigate Mr. Bannon, presented social media posts to jurors in which Mr. Bannon appeared to celebrate his decision to flout the subpoena, challenging an argument Mr. Bannon’s lawyers have made that at that time, Mr. Bannon believed he and the committee were still negotiating over a deadline.
The trial against Mr. Bannon began this week after a series of rulings significantly limited his defenses.
His lawyers had offered a number of reasons that Mr. Bannon had declined to testify before Congress, only for the judge in the case, Carl J. Nichols, to systematically reject them.
Notably, Judge Nichols dismissed the idea that any executive privilege conferred by Mr. Trump could shield Mr. Bannon from the subpoena. He also declined the defense’s request to delay the trial until October over concerns that high-profile news coverage of the House committee’s public hearings this summer could prejudice jurors.
The defense will have an opportunity to present its side on Thursday. It is unclear if Mr. Bannon will testify, and the case could conclude as early as this week.
Source: nytimes.com
