Bannon’s team tried to muddy those waters with hints of partisanship — both in an opening statement and in fiery comments Bannon made outside the courtroom after the proceedings concluded.
In her opening statement, District Attorney Amanda Vaughn said Bannon was defying a government order that citizens are obligated to follow, telling jurors they must find that “the defendant has shown his contempt for the US Congress, the US government and that he is guilty.” Bannon, by not complying with the subpoena, “prevented the government from obtaining the important information it needed from him.”
Speaking for about 20 minutes, Vaughan explained why the committee investigating the January 6, 2021 riot was entitled to information from Bannon, looking at how congressional committees conduct the research that shapes the laws Congress makes and why this committee is particularly interested to get information from Bannon.
“Because it was a subpoena, Congress was entitled to the information it was asking for. It wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request. It wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory,” he said, as he noted that the panel rejected Bannon’s reasons for not cooperating.
The case prosecutors have indicated they will pursue is, in part, the product of several preliminary rulings in their favor by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. He has kept out of the trial much of the evidence Bannon tried to present — including most of the arguments about executive privilege. Instead, the Justice Department simply has to prove that Bannon made a deliberate and deliberate decision not to appear for the requested deposition or to produce the required documents by specified deadlines.
He characterized the case as “about the defendant thumbing his nose at the regular process of our government.”
“This is not a mistake,” he told jurors. “The defendant didn’t get the date wrong. He didn’t get confused about where to go. He didn’t get stuck in a broken-down subway car. He just refused to follow the rules.”
Bannon’s team is playing politics
A long morning of bitter legal argument by Bannon’s team led to a relatively brief, 15-minute opening statement from his defense attorney, Evan Corcoran — and a lengthy public hearing from Bannon afterward.
Corcoran’s opening statement was the first time the public and the court heard the full defense of Bannon’s team, after days of protests. He explained to jurors that they would hear about some negotiations surrounding the Bannon subpoena and then hinted that there was partisanship when the House select committee subpoenaed his client.
“The evidence was crystal clear: No one, no one believed that Steve Bannon would show up on October 14, 2021,” Corcoran argued.
He also asked jurors to ask themselves, as they look at evidence like Bannon’s subpoena and contempt citation, “Is this evidence influenced by politics?”
After the proceedings, Bannon’s tone was hostile as he spoke from the sidewalk outside the courthouse. He attacked House Select Committee Chairman Benny Thompson, attacking the committee’s work and the way prosecutors presented their case.
“I challenge Bennie Thompson today to have the courage to come to this court. If he’s going to charge someone with a crime, he should be man enough to appear here,” Bannon said.
Bannon’s team previously tried to call several members of the House to testify, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, removing a strategy his team had hoped to use. However, there is a small chance the judge will reconsider Bannon’s desire to call Thompson to testify, depending on how the staffer’s testimony and the rest of prosecutors’ case goes.
Direct testimony from committee staff
With the Justice Department’s first witness on the stand to close out the afternoon, the testimony so far has been as straightforward as prosecutors can make it.
Did Bannon make records by the October 7th subpoena deadline?
“He didn’t,” said Kristin Amerling, deputy staff director at the committee.
Did Bannon appear to testify as required by his subpoena on October 14?
“He didn’t,” Amerling said, again, in the witness box.
The testimony underscored how simple the Justice Department tried to make the case for jurors — including laying out Congress’s work in the most basic terms.
Amerling also presented the parameters of the House committee and how it operates. She spoke of her investigative work as urgently needed because “the threat to our democratic institutions continues.” And he described how the committee sought out Bannon because of his contacts with Trump and others in Trump circles, including at the Willard Hotel before the Jan. 6 riot — all the details of which are included in the committee’s public letter to Bannon that accompanied the subpoena.
Amerling returns for more testimony Wednesday morning.
The verdict could come before Thursday’s hearing
Much of the drama of the Bannon trial was about its timing. Will this trial be short and simple (as prosecutors predict) or long and more complicated (as Bannon hopes)? Would it be delayed for a month or more, or could it even be headed for discussions before the select committee hearing in the prime time on Thursday night? Bannon has made several unsuccessful attempts to postpone this week’s trial, with his lawyer on Tuesday morning asking for a one-month delay after a heated legal battle over what evidence can be presented in the case. Not even a proposal by Bannon’s team to push the test back just a few days gained real traction. At one point, Nichols suggested they might have to wait until Wednesday for the trial to begin in earnest as the parties struggled to craft a plan to deal with some of the evidence. But in the end, this debate cost the proceedings only a few hours, and opening statements were able to begin by mid-afternoon. Only a handful of witnesses have been identified in both sides’ plans for the trial, meaning the proceedings are still on track to last just a few days. The question now is whether Bannon’s charges will be heard by a grand jury before Thursday’s Jan. 6 panel hearing.
title: “Excerpts From Day 2 Of Steve Bannon S Contempt Of Congress Trial " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-21” author: “Eric Fujimoto”
Bannon’s team tried to muddy those waters with hints of partisanship — both in an opening statement and in fiery comments Bannon made outside the courtroom after the proceedings concluded.
In her opening statement, District Attorney Amanda Vaughn said Bannon was defying a government order that citizens are obligated to follow, telling jurors they must find that “the defendant has shown his contempt for the US Congress, the US government and that he is guilty.” Bannon, by not complying with the subpoena, “prevented the government from obtaining the important information it needed from him.”
Speaking for about 20 minutes, Vaughan explained why the committee investigating the January 6, 2021 riot was entitled to information from Bannon, looking at how congressional committees conduct the research that shapes the laws Congress makes and why this committee is particularly interested to get information from Bannon.
“Because it was a subpoena, Congress was entitled to the information it was asking for. It wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request. It wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory,” he said, as he noted that the panel rejected Bannon’s reasons for not cooperating.
The case prosecutors have indicated they will pursue is, in part, the product of several preliminary rulings in their favor by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. He has kept out of the trial much of the evidence Bannon tried to present — including most of the arguments about executive privilege. Instead, the Justice Department simply has to prove that Bannon made a deliberate and deliberate decision not to appear for the requested deposition or to produce the required documents by specified deadlines.
He characterized the case as “about the defendant thumbing his nose at the regular process of our government.”
“This is not a mistake,” he told jurors. “The defendant didn’t get the date wrong. He didn’t get confused about where to go. He didn’t get stuck in a broken-down subway car. He just refused to follow the rules.”
Bannon’s team is playing politics
A long morning of bitter legal argument by Bannon’s team led to a relatively brief, 15-minute opening statement from his defense attorney, Evan Corcoran — and a lengthy public hearing from Bannon afterward.
Corcoran’s opening statement was the first time the public and the court heard the full defense of Bannon’s team, after days of protests. He explained to jurors that they would hear about some negotiations surrounding the Bannon subpoena and then hinted that there was partisanship when the House select committee subpoenaed his client.
“The evidence was crystal clear: No one, no one believed that Steve Bannon would show up on October 14, 2021,” Corcoran argued.
He also asked jurors to ask themselves, as they look at evidence like Bannon’s subpoena and contempt citation, “Is this evidence influenced by politics?”
After the proceedings, Bannon’s tone was hostile as he spoke from the sidewalk outside the courthouse. He attacked House Select Committee Chairman Benny Thompson, attacking the committee’s work and the way prosecutors presented their case.
“I challenge Bennie Thompson today to have the courage to come to this court. If he’s going to charge someone with a crime, he should be man enough to appear here,” Bannon said.
Bannon’s team previously tried to call several members of the House to testify, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, removing a strategy his team had hoped to use. However, there is a small chance the judge will reconsider Bannon’s desire to call Thompson to testify, depending on how the staffer’s testimony and the rest of prosecutors’ case goes.
Direct testimony from committee staff
With the Justice Department’s first witness on the stand to close out the afternoon, the testimony so far has been as straightforward as prosecutors can make it.
Did Bannon make records by the October 7th subpoena deadline?
“He didn’t,” said Kristin Amerling, deputy staff director at the committee.
Did Bannon appear to testify as required by his subpoena on October 14?
“He didn’t,” Amerling said, again, in the witness box.
The testimony underscored how simple the Justice Department tried to make the case for jurors — including laying out Congress’s work in the most basic terms.
Amerling also presented the parameters of the House committee and how it operates. She spoke of her investigative work as urgently needed because “the threat to our democratic institutions continues.” And he described how the committee sought out Bannon because of his contacts with Trump and others in Trump circles, including at the Willard Hotel before the Jan. 6 riot — all the details of which are included in the committee’s public letter to Bannon that accompanied the subpoena.
Amerling returns for more testimony Wednesday morning.
The verdict could come before Thursday’s hearing
Much of the drama of the Bannon trial was about its timing. Will this trial be short and simple (as prosecutors predict) or long and more complicated (as Bannon hopes)? Would it be delayed for a month or more, or could it even be headed for discussions before the select committee hearing in the prime time on Thursday night? Bannon has made several unsuccessful attempts to postpone this week’s trial, with his lawyer on Tuesday morning asking for a one-month delay after a heated legal battle over what evidence can be presented in the case. Not even a proposal by Bannon’s team to push the test back just a few days gained real traction. At one point, Nichols suggested they might have to wait until Wednesday for the trial to begin in earnest as the parties struggled to craft a plan to deal with some of the evidence. But in the end, this debate cost the proceedings only a few hours, and opening statements were able to begin by mid-afternoon. Only a handful of witnesses have been identified in both sides’ plans for the trial, meaning the proceedings are still on track to last just a few days. The question now is whether Bannon’s charges will be heard by a grand jury before Thursday’s Jan. 6 panel hearing.
