Steve Bannon’s defense seeks acquittal then rests case

Steve Bannon’s lawyer opened his defense Thursday, asking the judge for a direct acquittal, arguing that prosecutors had not proven their contempt-of-Congress case against the former adviser to then-President Donald Trump. Then the defense rested without bringing any witnesses.

Bannon lawyer Evan Corcoran said the prosecution’s case concerning Bannon’s resistance to the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena rested on the testimony of Kristin Amerling, the panel’s chief counsel and it was “clear from her testimony that the dates were in flux.”

In making his motion for acquittal before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, Corcoran said that “no reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Bannon refused to comply.”

Corcoran then rested the defense case. Nichols said he would rule later on the acquittal motion.

Throughout the trial Corcoran has tried to establish that the deadline for the onetime Trump strategist to appear before the House committee investigating the Capitol riot was flexible as long as the two sides were on negotiating terms.

In opening statements Corcoran argued that the charges against Bannon were politically motivated and that the former adviser was engaged in good-faith negotiations with the congressional committee when he was charged. “No one ignored the subpoena,” Corcoran told the jury.

In reality, Corcoran said, one of Bannon’s previous lawyers, Robert Costello, contacted an attorney for the House committee to express some of Bannon’s concerns about testifying.

“They did what two lawyers do. They negotiated,” Corcoran said, adding that Bannon and his legal team believed “the dates of the subpoena were not fixed; they were flexible.”

Bannon was in an unofficial capacity to Trump at the time of the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and is charged with defying a congressional subpoena from the House committee investigating the aftermath of the 2020 election and the events leading up to the deadly riot.

Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, a month after the Justice Department received the House panel’s referral. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days of jail and as long as a year behind bars upon conviction.

The Justice Department rested its case Wednesday after calling just two witnesses: Amerling, and FBI special agent Stephen Hart. The prosecution’s case was dominated by testimony from Amerling, who explained the extent to which the committee tried to engage Bannon and the timeline leading up to the missed deadline.

During cross examination Corcoran asked Amerling whether it was common for witnesses to appear before a congressional committee several weeks after the deadline date on a subpoena. Amerling answered “yes,” but added only “when witnesses are cooperating with the committee.”

Amerling said Bannon was uncooperative from the start, so there was no such leeway.

The committee heard nothing from Bannon until after the first deadline had passed, at which point his lawyer sent a letter to the committee stating that Bannon was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege and would not be providing documents or appearing. The committee responded in writing that Trump’s claim was invalid — Trump was no longer president, and Bannon was not employed at the White House at the time of the riot.

The panel gave Bannon a hard deadline of Oct. 14 to come before the committee. When that deadline passed, the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote Bannon’s lawyer on Oct. 15 threatening criminal prosecution.

The committee, which is holding a prime time hearing Thursday, wanted to speak with Bannon because it had information that Bannon was actively involved in planning, logistics and fundraising for efforts by Trump, a Republican, to overturn the 2020 election and stop Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. The subpoena demanded any documents or communications relating to Trump and other people in his orbit, including lawyer Rudy Giuliani and extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

The emphasis on the subpoena timeline is one of the few avenues of defense that Nichols left Bannon’s legal team after a hearing last week. Nichols ruled that major elements of Bannon’s planned defense were irrelevant and could not be introduced in court. The judge said Bannon could not claim he believed he was covered by executive privilege, which allows presidents to withhold confidential information from the courts and the legislative branch, or that he was acting on the advice of his lawyers.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the Jan. 6 committee hearings at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege

Read More


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Generated by Feedzy