The simple case prosecutors want to present was evident in opening statements and in the cross-examination of their first witness, a House select committee official who kept her testimony very basic.
Bannon’s team tried to muddy those waters with insinuations of bias — both in an opening statement and in fiery remarks Bannon delivered to the courtroom after the proceedings concluded.
In her opening statement, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said Bannon was defying a government order that citizens are required to follow, telling the jury it must find that “the defendant has shown his contempt for the United States Congress, the United States 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, Vaughn laid out why the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 riot is entitled to information from Bannon, looking at how congressional committees do research that shapes the laws Congress passes and why this committee was specifically interested in getting information from Bannon.
“Because it was a subpoena, Congress was entitled to the information it wanted. It wasn’t by choice. It wasn’t a request. It wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory,” she said, stressing that the committee rejected Bannon’s reasons for not cooperating.
The case that prosecutors have signaled they will begin 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 wanted to present — including most arguments about executive privilege. The Justice Department instead simply has to prove that Bannon made a deliberate and willful decision not to appear for the requested testimony or produce the requested documents within the specified time limits.
She framed the case as “about the defendant poking his nose into the due process of our government.”
“This is not a case of error,” she told the jury. “The accused did not get the date wrong. He’s not confused about where to go. Not stuck on a damaged subway car. He just refused to follow the rules.”
Team Bannon is playing politics
A long morning of bitter legal wrangling by Bannon’s team resulted in a relatively brief, 15-minute opening statement from his defense attorney Evan Corcoran — and a lengthy public tirade from Bannon later.
Corcoran’s opening statement was the first time the public and the court heard the full framework of Bannon’s team’s defense after days of their protests. He explained to jurors that they would hear about any negotiations surrounding Bannon’s subpoena, then hinted that partisanship was underway when a 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 said.
He also asked jurors to wonder, as they see evidence like Bannon’s subpoena and contempt filing, “Is this evidence politically influenced?”
After the trial, Bannon’s tone was hostile as he spoke from the sidewalk outside the courthouse. He blasted House Select Committee Chairman Benny Thompson, attacking the committee’s work and the way the prosecutors’ case was presented.
“Today I challenge Benny Thompson to have the courage to come to this courthouse. If he’s going to charge somebody with a crime, he should be man enough to come here,” Bannon said.
Bannon’s team had previously tried to subpoena several House members to testify, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, eliminating one strategy his team had hoped to use. Still, there’s little chance the judge will reconsider Bannon’s willingness to call Thompson to testify, depending on how the employee’s testimony and the rest of prosecutors’ case goes.
Clear testimony from an officer of the commission
With the Justice Department’s first witness on the stand in late afternoon, the testimony so far has been about as clear as prosecutors can get.
Has Bannon submitted records by his October 7th subpoena deadline?
“He didn’t,” said Christine Amerling, the commission’s deputy director.
Did Bannon testify as required by his October 14th subpoena?
“He didn’t,” Amerling said again on the witness stand.
The testimony underscored how simply the Justice Department sought to make its case to the jury — including by presenting the work of Congress in the most basic terms.
Amerling also laid out the parameters of the House committee and how it operates. She said her fact-finding work needed to be done urgently because “the threat to our democratic institutions continues.” And she described how the committee sought Bannon because of his contacts with Trump and others in Trump’s 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 accompanying the subpoena.
Amerling returns for more testimony Wednesday morning.
The verdict could come before Thursday’s prime-time hearing
Much of the drama of the Bannon trial has to do with its timing.
Will this trial be short and easy (as prosecutors predict) or long and more complicated (as Bannon hopes)? Will it be delayed a month or more, or could it even head to debate before Thursday night’s prime-time committee hearing?
Bannon has made several unsuccessful attempts to delay the trial this week, with his lawyer on Tuesday morning asking for a one-month delay after a heated legal dispute over what evidence can be presented in the case.
Nor did Bannon’s team’s proposal to delay the trial for just a few days get any real traction. At one point, Nichols suggested they might have to wait until Wednesday to begin the trial in earnest as the parties scramble to come up with a plan to deal with certain evidence. But in the end, this debate cost the proceedings only a few hours, and opening statements managed to begin by mid-afternoon.
Only a handful of witnesses have been identified in both sides’ trial plans, meaning the proceedings are still on track to last just a few days. The question now is whether Bannon’s allegations will be considered by the jury before the committee’s hearing on Thursday, January 6.
Add Comment