The fast pace of the prosecution, which began Tuesday afternoon and ended a day later, speaks to the relatively simple factual and legal issues at the heart of the high-profile, politically charged trial: whether Bannon refused a congressional subpoena and, therefore, the rarely charged crime was committed. Prosecutors called as their first witness Kristin Amerling, the committee’s chief counsel on Jan. 6, who detailed how Bannon did not interact with the committee until after he missed the first deadline to respond. In the weeks and months that followed, Bannon still refused to provide the information he was subpoenaed for, Amerling said. Bannon’s legal team fired back Wednesday by asking about a series of letters, some as recent as a week ago, between Bannon’s lawyer and the committee still discussing the prospect of his testimony. The defense is trying to show that he didn’t refuse to cooperate, he was just negotiating. Prosecutor: Bannon thumbed his nose at Congress, the law M. Evan Corcoran, one of Bannon’s lawyers, also suggested that Donald Trump had told Bannon that the former president had invoked executive privilege — a legal claim meant to shield some of the president’s conversations from his investigations Congress. Rejecting the committee’s subpoenas in late 2021, attorney Robert Costello — who represented Bannon in his dealings with the House Select Committee — claimed in a letter that Trump had invoked the privilege to cover for Bannon. But earlier this month, as Bannon tried to delay his trial, Trump told Bannon he no longer claimed such a privilege. But Amerling said both of those claims were paradoxical, based on a mischaracterization of what executive privilege is and how it works. “The president had not formally or informally invoked the privilege, even if you accept the premise that the privilege applies,” he testified. U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols has previously said it is unclear whether Trump ever invoked executive privilege. Also uncertain is whether a former president can claim such a privilege, let alone whether he would cover conversations with a non-government official like Bannon. In any event, Nichols has ruled that privilege is not a valid defense for Bannon unless he can show that it caused him to misunderstand the October 2021 subpoena compliance deadlines. Bannon’s defense strategy became clearer Wednesday, as his lawyers repeatedly indicated that he and the committee were negotiating in late 2021 about information he could provide, and continued to do so as recently as a week ago. The defense team also tried to show that the committee’s Democratic chairman, Bennie G. Thompson (Miss.), played a role — and political — role in Bannon’s pursuit. A day earlier, Bannon told reporters outside court that Thompson didn’t have the “guts” to come testify against him, sending Amerling. Prosecutors have repeatedly objected to the defense strategy, saying it was a legal fiction designed to fool the jury into believing Bannon had acted appropriately. Nichols said he would not allow the high-profile trial to become a “political circus,” warning that he would allow Bannon’s team to raise some political questions but also police the issue. Former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon criticized the panel’s Jan. 6 hearing as a “show trial” after it withdrew from jury selection on July 18. (Video: Reuters) In at least 15 cases, Trump’s picks escalated tensions that culminated in riots on Capitol Hill While defense lawyers tried to make the case about political leanings and alliances, prosecutors tried to narrow the focus to a clearer series of letters between Bannon’s lawyer and the committee, including one from Thompson warning that “defiance” of Bannon could lead to criminal impeachment. for contempt of Congress. Bannon was indicted in November. Corcoran grilled Amerling about the process by which the calls were served and the letters created, asking specifically which parts of the letters were written by Thompson. Amerling said she could not recall that level of detail and that such letters were generally drafted by staff before being reviewed and signed off on by lawmakers. Corcoran then tried a very different line of attack, suggesting that Amerling’s past work history and involvement in a book club with a prosecutor might have tainted the case. Amerling acknowledged that about 15 years ago, she worked for then-Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., along with Molly Gaston, who is now an assistant U.S. attorney handling Bannon’s prosecution and other Jan. 6 cases. Amerling also said she is in a book club with Gaston, made up mostly of people who used to work for Waxman. “So you’re in a book club with the DA on this case?” Corcoran asked. “We are,” Amerling replied, though she said she hadn’t attended one of the gatherings in over a year and didn’t think she’d seen Gaston at a book club meeting in years. Asked if the book club discussed politics, Amerling replied, “The conversations cover a whole variety of topics. … It’s not uncommon to talk about politics one way or another.” Amerling said, under cross-examination by prosecutors, that she had never discussed the Bannon case with Gaston and that their acquaintance had nothing to do with the commission’s action or the US prosecution. Prosecutors also subpoenaed FBI Special Agent Stephen Hart to discuss his November 2021 conversation with Costello, the lawyer who represented Bannon in his dealings with the committee, who may testify as a defense witness. In that conversation, Hart testified, Costello said Bannon was “totally engaged” in the subpoena discussions. At no point did the lawyer suggest there was any confusion about the committee’s subpoena deadlines, Hart said. Bannon, a bombastic media figure, has been confined to court this week, often sitting with his hands tied in front of him. But once the FBI agent took the stand, Bannon became more animated, laughing a response and then shaking his head in apparent anger at the testimony about Hart’s conversation with Costello.
The uprising of January 6
The House select committee investigating the 6 January 2021 riot held a series of high-profile hearings throughout the summer. Read the final recap of the hearing. Congressional Hearings: The House committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol held a series of hearings to share its findings with the US public. The sixth hearing included explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide. Will there be charges? The committee could bring criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the attack, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in an interview. What we know about what Trump did on January 6th: New details emerged when Hutchinson testified before the commission and shared what she saw and heard on Jan. 6. The Riot: On January 6, 2021, a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election results. Five people died that day or soon after, and 140 police officers were attacked. Inside the siege: During the rampage, rioters came perilously close to breaking into the building’s inner sanctums while lawmakers were still there, including former Vice President Mike Pence. The Washington Post reviewed text messages, photos and videos to create a video timeline of what happened on January 6.
