Bannon doesn’t testify as defense rests in contempt of Congress trial

Steve Bannon’s defense team rested its case on Thursday without calling the former Trump adviser to the witness stand to testify in his criminal contempt of Congress trial.

Defense lawyer David Schoen told U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that Mr. Bannon declined to testify due to court rulings that he said barred Mr. Bannon from “telling the true facts” to the jury. 

Those rulings limited Mr. Bannon’s ability to use a defense that he had been acting on the advice of counsel when he refused to cooperate with the House committee investigating the pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Mr. Schoen said Mr. Bannon “understands that he has the right to testify on his own behalf,” and said his client has “very much wanted to since the day he was indicted.”

The jury will begin its deliberations Friday after hearing closing arguments. 

Mr. Bannon told reporters outside of the courtroom on Thursday that he, “of any person in the Trump administration,” has been forthcoming with Congress in previous requests to testify including before the Mueller investigation and House and Senate Intelligence committees.

“I think [I’ve given] over 50 hours of testimony,” he said. “Every time, the exact same way: Executive privilege, a lawyer is engaged, they work it out. Every time. Every single time.”

Mr. Bannon, who hosts the news and opinion broadcast “War Room: Pandemic,” insists the charges against him are politically motivated and the Democratic-controlled committee has conflicts of interest in discrediting Republicans.

The 68-year-old former presidential adviser is on trial for defying the Jan. 6 committee’s demands for documents and a deposition in its probe of the riot.

His lawyer at the time, Robert Costello, argued in a series of letters to the committee that the requested documents and testimony were protected under former President Donald Trump’s claims of executive privilege, which were, at the time, the subject of a pending court battle.

Mr. Costello argued that Mr. Bannon could not unilaterally waive Mr. Trump’s privilege claims to appear before the committee.

Those arguments were rejected by the committee. The prosecution has argued that Mr. Bannon acted as if he were “above the law” in refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoena.

Mr. Schoen told Judge Nichols on Thursday without the jury present that it is unreasonable to expect Mr. Bannon to have rejected Mr. Costello’s advice.

He said Mr. Bannon was barred, however, from making the argument before the jury, given the court’s limitations set before the trial.

The jury heard no arguments on Thursday, filing into the courtroom only briefly in the afternoon for the defense to formally rest.

Thursday’s proceedings were taken up with debate between both parties on final jury instructions and with a defense motion for acquittal, based on members of the House committee’s refusal to testify in Mr. Bannon’s case.

Mr. Bannon’s defense team subpoenaed members of the Committee last month to testify in his case, and the court ruled before the trial that it could not compel the lawmakers to testify.

But on Thursday, Mr. Schoen told the judge that Mr. Bannon’s legal defense had been “badly stymied” by the decision.

Judge Nichols reserved a ruling on the defense motion.

The government called just two witnesses to lay out what it called a straightforward case of Mr. Bannon willfully refusing to comply with demands to turn over documents and testimony after receiving a subpoena from the committee.

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bannon willfully failed to comply with a subpoena seeking pertinent information.

The prosecution began its arguments in earnest Tuesday after an arduous jury selection process and a spat over key evidence by calling Kristin Amerling, the Jan. 6 committee’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, to begin outlining its case.

Ms. Amerling, who advised the committee on issuing Mr. Bannon his subpoena, testified to the urgency behind the committee’s move. She told the jury that the committee had strict deadlines under which it sought information from witnesses.

Ms. Amerling also testified that the committee sent a series of letters to Mr. Costello communicating its deadlines to hand over documents and appear.

Evan Corcoran, Mr. Bannon’s co-counsel, said the back-and-forth between the committee and Mr. Costello constituted a “negotiation” on the committee’s deadlines, which his client reasonably believed were malleable.

The prosecution also called FBI Special Agent Stephen Hart as a witness on Wednesday. Mr. Hart attended a video conference last November, along with the prosecution team, in which Mr. Costello advised the government not to prosecute Mr. Bannon.

Mr. Hart testified that Mr. Costello did not suggest during the video conference that Mr. Bannon should not be prosecuted based on claims that the committee’s deadlines were fungible, or that Mr. Bannon was still negotiating with the committee.

Mr. Hart also testified about two of Mr. Bannon’s posts on the social media site Gettr in which Mr. Bannon linked to Rolling Stone and Daily Mail articles covering his refusal to appear before the committee. The prosecution used it to attempt to show that Mr. Bannon willfully bucked the committee despite his claims that he was still negotiating the deadline.

In cross-examination, Mr. Corcoran argued that the posts were merely links to articles published in outside news outlets, rather than public statements by his client.

The prosecution rested its case late Wednesday. 

The committee has held a series of hearings spanning June and July to unpack findings from its nearly yearlong investigation into the riot at the Capitol. The committee’s final hearing took place with a prime-time TV event Thursday.

Mr. Bannon’s legal team requested a delay in his trial last month in light of the “media blitz” surrounding the committee’s hearings. Mr. Corcoran said the fanfare infringes on his right to a fair trial unblemished by outside findings and presuppositions formed from the public hearings.

In the motion, which was denied, Mr. Corcoran argued that several of the findings produced by the committee in the hearings specifically referenced Mr. Bannon and matters material to his case without allowing him to respond.

The jurors were instructed not to consume news or information that could impact their judgment in Mr. Bannon’s case.