For refusing to cooperate with a subpoena issued by the House select committee looking into the attack on the Capitol on January 6, Steve Bannon, a former senior campaign adviser and chief White House strategist, was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt of Congress.
After less than three hours of deliberation, the 12 Washington, D.C., citizens on the panel found Bannon guilty.
Bannon, who declined to testify in his own defense, may spend up to a year in jail on each of the two counts.
Bannon was charged with contempt by the Justice Department after the House of Representatives decided to recommend his non-compliance for criminal prosecution last year.
After Bannon entered a not guilty plea, there was a contentious legal dispute between the defense and the prosecution over which evidence was allowed to be used, Bannon’s attempts to delay the trial, and the ongoing televised hearings showcasing the evidence presented by the House Jan. 6 select committee, which repeatedly mentioned Bannon.
The subpoena was issued in September 2021 by the House committee, which concluded its final session of the summer on Thursday night. The panel asked Bannon for information on 17 important topics, ranging from his conversations with former President Trump to his knowledge of right-wing extremist organizations’ collaboration in carrying out the attack on the Capitol.
While Bannon himself did not testify and his defense team did not bring any witnesses, prosecutors told the jury that Bannon believed he was “above the law” and “thumbed his nose” at congressional requests.
It’s “extremely rare,” according to the lead attorney for the Jan. 6 committee, for witnesses who receive a congressional subpoena to blatantly refuse to appear, as Bannon did. One of the two witnesses questioned by the prosecutors, Kristin Amerling, stated that the committee considered referring Bannon to the Justice Department for criminal contempt of Congress to be a “quite severe action.” She claimed that despite their warnings that Bannon may face criminal charges, he disregarded them.
Bannon said that executive privilege issues cited by the outgoing president prevented him from testifying at the time of his refusal. Amerling, however, said that the committee never heard from Trump on this impediment to removing Bannon, and that the committee would not have accepted such a claim in the first place.
Days before the trial started, in a startling about-face, Bannon informed the committee on Jan. 6 that he would be happy to testify — in public — after his lawyer, Robert Costello, claimed Trump had changed his mind about those executive privilege claims.
The reversal was discussed with the jury throughout both witness questioning and closing arguments, but the judge specifically told the jury that it had no influence on Bannon’s claimed prior failure to cooperate.
“Whether or not Mr. Bannon in the future complies with the subpoena is not relevant to whether or not he was in default in October,” Judge Carl Nichols told them.
The FBI agent working on the investigation was also summoned by the prosecution. He testified that Bannon reportedly made a number of internet statements signaling his choice to ignore the subpoena in order to “stand with Trump.”
“Our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable with, they do not,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said in closing arguments.
“The defendant choose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” she said.
The defense team, however, said that Bannon was innocent and had not purposefully disobeyed the congressional order because he believed discussions over the viability of Trump’s executive privilege claim were continuing and flexible. They informed the jury that it’s possible the committee and Amerling “singled him out” due to politics.
“Even if you think in hindsight that path that Mr. Bannon took and the path that his lawyer took…turned out to be mistake,” attorney Evan Corcoran told the jury in his closing statements, “it was not a crime.”
“The entire foundation of the government’s case rests on Ms. Amerling,” the attorney added, accusing her of inaccuracies and later highlighting that Amerling and Gaston were former colleagues and part of the same book club. Amerling said they had no personal relationship, and the book club had no bearing on her testimony.
Bannon’s lawyers argued against the judge’s pretrial judgments throughout the trial, but away from the jury. Among them was one that would preclude Bannon from claiming that he was just following legal advice and that executive privilege extended to his choice not to speak before the committee. Additionally, the defense was denied the right to summon members of the House Jan. 6 committee as witnesses, which, according to the defense, gave them an unfair advantage because it prevented them from questioning the validity of the subpoena and its deadlines.
Two Trump supporters have been charged with criminally disobeying the Jan. 6 committee’s demands to go to trial, with Bannon being the first. Peter Navarro, a former trade advisor, is also charged with criminally disobeying Congress on two counts. He entered a not guilty plea, and his trial is scheduled for November.
Two additional former Trump White House employees who the House had referred for contempt were not charged by the prosecution. After the committee determined on January 6 that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and advisor Dan Scavino had not complied with a subpoena enough, they were not charged with any offenses.