Steve Bannon was found guilty of criminal contempt of Congress for his defiance of the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.
A jury in Washington, DC, reached a verdict after three hours of deliberations, giving the Justice Department a victory in a case stemming from a House referral.
He didn't want to testify in his own defense or call witnesses. He railed against the House January 6 committee at one point accusing its members of lacking the "guts" to testify against him at the trial.
The House voted in October to hold Bannon in contempt for refusing to sit for questioning or turn over documents to the committee investigating the January 6 attack. A grand jury indicted Bannon on two counts of contempt of Congress, each carrying a maximum sentence of a year in prison and $100,000 fine.
There were eight men and four women in the jury.
A series of rulings made by a federal judge prevented the former Trump White House advisor from arguing that his refusal to testify before the House committee was due to executive privilege. Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked Bannon from arguing that he broke the law by disobeying the House committee.
When he blew off deadlines to sit for questioning and turn over records, prosecutors argued that he was above the law. The assistant US attorney pointed out that the case was about a man who didn't show up.
In October 2021, after receiving a House subpoena, Bannon said he stood with Trump.
The person chose to be loyal to Donald Trump.
The contempt charges were brought against the Trump ally because of politics, according to the defense lawyer. In the closing argument, Corcoran recalled listening to the news about people in power trying to suppress the opposition.
The principle of criminal prosecutions in the US is that politics can't be a factor.
His lawyers made a point of preserving the chance to appeal several rulings as he faced long odds going into the trial. The defense team was unable to call members of the House January 6 committee due to a previous ruling from Nichols.
After months of stonewalling, the defense team was given the go-ahead to raise the offer of testimony from Steve Bannon after the pre- trial rulings. The letter from Trump purporting to waive executive privilege was the reason for the reversal.
The prosecutor said that the sudden decision to testify was designed to convince the jury that a deadline is not a deadline.
He told jurors to give him a break. Don't be deceived by that.
He said that the offer was nothing but a ploy because he still hadn't agreed to turn over the documents.
The prosecutors objected to the raising of his offer to testify because they said it was a last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability. They appeared to see an opening to make the offer of testimony backfire against him.
The offer to testify came just before the trial was set to begin. With the end of the current Congress approaching, Amerling said that the House January 6 committee had lost valuable time in its investigation of the Capitol attack and the months of defiance by Steve Bannon.
Amerling said that the House January 6 committee took an interest in him because he predicted on his radio show that "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow."
In his closing argument, Corcoran questioned Amerling's impartiality, saying that she has worked for Democrats for 20 years.
She seems like someone who's used to getting their way. "Corcoran, what's the matter?" Why was Steve Bannon treated differently than other people?
The two men were members of the same book club as well as on a House committee.
Corcoran said to make no mistake. I'm not against books.
He asked if he had understood the testimony of Amerling.
She didn't know what courtroom Mr. Corcoran was in. All I know is that Ms. Amerling and Ms. Gaston are book club dropouts.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
