Bannon Convicted of Contempt for Defying Jan. 6 Panel’s Subpoena

Steve Bannon, a longtime adviser to former President Donald Trump, was found guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The verdict -- in the first trial over a refusal to cooperate with the committee -- was reached by a jury in Washington after three hours of deliberation Friday. The week-long trial included only two witnesses for the government. Bannon’s attorneys decided not to call any witnesses in his defense.

Bannon, 68, a prominent right-wing media figure who is credited with helping Trump win the presidency, had no visible reaction as the verdict was read. During the course of the trial, he said little in the courtroom -- electing not to testify on his own behalf -- but he never missed an opportunity to meet with the press on the courthouse steps.

“I only have one disappointment,” Bannon told reporters on the steps after the verdict. Bannon complained that the members of the Jan. 6 committee “didn’t have the guts to come down here and testify in open court.” The judge in the case rebuffed his lawyers’ attempts to call committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as witnesses.

EXPLAINER: What’s Contempt of Congress?

Bannon’s attorney David Schoen said they will appeal the verdict. Each of the two counts on which he was found guilty carry a maximum of 1 year in prison and fines of up to $100,000. It’s unlikely he will face the maximum penalty.

Bannon and several associates were previously charged by the federal government in a scheme to line their pockets with money donated to build a wall on the southern US border, but Trump pardoned him before that case went to trial.

The verdict was a win for the Jan. 6 committee and “a victory for the rule of law and an important affirmation of the Select Committee’s work,” Democratic Chair Bennie Thompson and Republican Vice Chair Liz Cheney said said in a joint statement. “No one is above the law.”

Others reacted to the quick verdict. “The jury apparently agreed that it was an easy case, deliberating, having their lunch, and returning a conviction all in just a couple of hours,” said former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers, who was not involved in the case.

Read More: Bannon Is Ringmaster in a ‘Political Circus’ on Courthouse Steps

Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee last fall to provide documents and evidence by deadlines in October. He is the first person in Trump’s inner circle to face consequences for failing to cooperate. Peter Navarro, Trump’s former trade adviser, is facing similar charges.

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence to show Bannon thought he was above the law by deliberately choosing to ignore set deadlines on the subpoena. Bannon’s defense team argued that the dates were ambiguous and implied that the contempt referral was politically-motivated.

Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, tried to keep the trial from devolving into “political circus” and limited the defense to asking questions about the bias of a witness. At times, he had to rein in defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

On Thursday, the defense team made one last effort to persuade Nichols to acquit Bannon arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecutors was too thin. Corcoran called the trial a “one-witness case.”

Nichols said he would rule on the motion after the verdict.

The government’s star witness was Kristin Amerling, chief counsel to the Jan. 6 committee, who testified that Bannon ignored multiple requests and warnings to comply with the subpoena. The committee demanded that Bannon send over documents by Oct. 7 and appear for testimony on Oct. 14, but he never did, Amerling told the jury on Wednesday.

She also said that he didn’t follow procedures attached to the subpoena if he wanted to request more time.

During cross examination, Corcoran questioned Amerling about her politics and asked her who specifically was responsible for setting the dates on the subpoena. In an effort to get Bannon acquitted, Corcoran told the judge Amerling’s testimony was weak because “she was unable to identify why those dates were in the subpoena at all,” or identify “who put those dates in the subpoena.”

The prosecution called a second witness, Stephen Hart, an agent for the FBI who investigated Bannon’s failure to comply with the subpoena. Hart testified that Bannon’s former attorney, Robert Costello, offered no other reason aside from Bannon’s claim of executive privilege from Trump for his refusal to cooperate even though he left the White House in 2017.

On the eve of the trial, Bannon offered to testify to the committee. It was nine months after the committee initially sought his testimony. Bannon’s offer came with a letter from Trump, who said that he was waiving executive privilege to free Bannon up to testify.

Nichols previously questioned whether Trump ever invoked executive privilege and said it was unclear whether the protection applied to Bannon since he was a private citizen when offering advice.

(Upates with Jan. 6 committee reaction.)

--With assistance from Billy House.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net;
Sabrina Willmer in New York at swillmer2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Katia Porzecanski at kporzecansk1@bloomberg.net

Elizabeth Wasserman

© 2022 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.