Through their questioning of House committee staffer Christine Amerling, prosecutors walked the jury through the paper trail of documents that notified Bannon that October was the deadline for him to produce documents and testify. Meanwhile, Bannon’s team has gone all out — including his recent offer to testify before the committee — to try to suggest that Bannon had reason to believe the deadline wasn’t fixed, while hinting at alleged bias against of. The pace of Wednesday’s testimony hinged largely on letters between the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot and Bannon. Several defenses Bannon could have tried to present were undermined by the paper trail of documents sent to him by the committee regarding his subpoena, and the prosecution was able to introduce those documents through Amerling’s questioning. The documents showed that Bannon had been warned that failure to comply with the subpoena risked him being prosecuted. They showed the panel rejected his claims that Trump’s claims of executive privilege precluded him from cooperating. And they showed the committee confirmed subpoena deadlines and MPs’ expectations that it would comply by then. Amerling was also asked about the responses the committee received from Bannon’s attorney. He testified that Bannon never asked for the deadlines to be moved, nor did he give the committee reasons that the committee believed would help justify his noncompliance, such as not understanding the subpoena’s instructions. That testimony was important to the Justice Department’s case because it pokes holes in the key defense category Bannon is allowed to pursue: challenging the stability of subpoena deadlines. On paper, the prosecution wanted the jury to see that it had an opportunity to explain such a matter, and it never did — especially in the face of repeated confirmations from the committee that it expected it to comply within the deadline. And the committee, at least according to documents offered during Amerling’s testimony, never signaled to Bannon that compliance deadlines were easing.
Bannon’s team says the committee gave him flexibility
After a series of rulings that limited his defenses, Bannon finally prevailed, with U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols on Wednesday giving his team the OK to admit his lawyer’s and Trump’s recent letters to the committee that allowed him to submit. In the ruling, they also admitted an unreported letter sent by committee chairman Bennie Thompson last week in response to Bannon’s motion to testify before the committee. Bannon’s team had very little to work with in this test. So the ability to use the letters during Amerling’s questioning was a rare opportunity for them to stretch their defense of Bannon — and allowed the issue of executive privilege to hang over the case longer than the Justice Department had intended. . Bannon’s team sought to use the emails to bolster the case that Bannon had reason to believe the October return dates were not a hard deadline but rather flexible turning points in the negotiation process for Bannon’s cooperation. In his questioning of Amerling, Corcoran pointed her specifically to Thompson’s indication that he would still host Bannon for a deposition. Bannon’s team hopes the jury sees that as evidence that, even when the subpoenas have return dates, the process was open and that Bannon had reason to believe that when he passed the October deadlines, that his cooperation would later be acceptable to the committee. (The judge instructed the jury that any future compliance by Bannon with the subpoena was unrelated to whether he defaulted last year.)
The trial could convene with the jury on Thursday
The Justice Department wrapped up its case quickly Wednesday with a brief series of questions about its second witness, FBI agent Steven Hart, who read public statements by Bannon saying he would stand by Donald Trump and linking to his accounts. on social media stories describing him. as non-compliance with the commission, even after a period of summons has passed. Now the question will be how many witnesses, if any, the defense team will call to help Bannon’s case. If no one is called — and Bannon doesn’t testify, the case could go to jury deliberations by the afternoon. On Thursday night, the House Select Committee’s investigation will hold its hearing on Trump at the White House on January 6. So far, Bannon has been a peripheral figure in what the House hearings have shown, and he could continue to be barely mentioned given that he was not an administration official on Jan. 6, 2021. But a conviction in the case could be a windfall. of the work of the House before the long-awaited public event. Throughout Wednesday’s proceedings, Amerling explained why the committee called Bannon so early in its investigation. The committee believed what Bannon shared could lead them to other witnesses or documents or perhaps help them know what not to pursue, he testified. After court, Bannon did not respond to questions about whether he would defend his position.
One defensive strategy: Call the Democrats
Wednesday’s proceedings began with a debate between lawyers and the judge over whether the case would be a political circus. Nichols said he wouldn’t let it become one. But during the hours that defense attorney Evan Corcoran questioned Amerling, he repeatedly inquired about her policy. The questions sought to show Washington, the grand jury, and the Democratic-leaning panel may have wrongfully singled out Bannon from among their thousands of witnesses. Corcoran was able to ask Amerling, a two-decade veteran on the Hill, about the parties of lawmakers she worked for and her political contributions. Her earlier participation in a book club with a prosecutor on the case turned into a lively set of questions. But when Bannon’s lawyers turned to questions about the larger political dynamics of the House and the committee’s actions, the judge largely blocked them from going there. Some of Amerling’s answers also derailed Corcoran’s question. At one point, he tried to push back when he began working on a multi-page draft contempt report for the committee, implying it could be before Bannon’s deadlines passed. But Amerling said she believed it wasn’t, though she couldn’t name an exact date.
