July 22 Steve Bannon trial news | CNN Politics (2024)

A federal jury has found former Trump adviser Steve Bannon guilty of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

If you are just reading in, here are key things to know about the case and what happens next:

The verdict: After nearly two days of hearing evidence and witness testimony, the jury reached a unanimous verdict on the two contempt charges in less than three hours.

Bannon smiled as the verdict was read, looking back and forth between the courtroom deputy and the foreperson. Bannon’s team did not mount a defense during the trial, and he did not take the stand. Speaking to reporters after the conviction, his attorney David Schoen said they planned to appeal the verdict, calling it a “bullet proof appeal.”

In a Justice Department news release touting the conviction, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves said that the “subpoena to Stephen Bannon was not an invitation that could be rejected or ignored.”

“Mr. Bannon had an obligation to appear before the House Select Committee to give testimony and provide documents. His refusal to do so was deliberate and now a jury has found that he must pay the consequences,” Graves said.

What happens next: Bannon will be sentenced on Oct. 21. He faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.

Why the conviction matters: It is a victory for the House Jan. 6 select committee as it continues to seek the cooperation of reluctant witnesses in its historic investigation. It is also a victory for the Justice Department, which is under intense scrutiny for its approach to matters related to the Jan. 6 attack.

Bannon is one of two uncooperative Jan. 6 committee witnesses to be charged so far by the Justice Department for contempt of Congress. Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury last month for not complying with a committee subpoena and has pleaded not guilty.

Why the committee wanted Bannon’s cooperation: Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury in November after he blew off October deadlines for producing the documents and testimony the committee had subpoenaed.

In demanding his cooperation, the committee had pointed to Bannon’s contacts with Trump in the lead up to the Capitol assault, his presence in the so-called war room of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington the day before the riot, and a prediction he made on his podcast before the riot that “all hell” was going to “break loose.”

“In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions,” the House committee report recommend a contempt resolution against him said. The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt in October.

What both sides said in closing arguments: The Justice Department told the jury that the case was “not complicated,” but that it was “important.” “This is a simple case about a man — that man — who didn’t show up,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said. Bannon, she argued, “did not want to recognize Congress’ authority or play by the government’s rules.”

Gaston described Bannon’s conduct as a betrayal to his duties as a citizen, and said that he had “contempt” for the government and for playing by the rules. “The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance to the law,” Gaston said.

Bannon’s team argued in closing that the jury had reason to doubt the case, while suggesting the government’s key witness was not impartial. “Mr. Bannon was not in a position to testify” for the committee, his attorney Evan Corcoran told the jury, while pointing to statements Trump had made about executive privilege in the House investigation.

The role of executive privilege in the case: When the House committee was demanding his cooperation, Bannon’s lawyer claimed that Trump’s stated assertions of executive privilege prevented Bannon from testifying or producing arguments — an argument the committee roundly rejected. Lawmakers noted that Bannon had for years not been a government official, while pointing to their interest to topic areas not involving conversations with Trump.

At the trial, however, Bannon’s arguments about executive privilege were not a central focus — even as his lawyers found ways to bring attention to the issue. They did so in the face of rulings from the judge deeming it largely irrelevant, under appellate precedent, to the elements of the contempt crime.

Read more about the case and Friday’s proceedings here.

Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of the Jan. 6 committee, and Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, applauded Steve Bannon’s conviction, calling it a “victory for the rule of law.”

“The conviction of Steve Bannon is a victory for the rule of law and an important affirmation of the Select Committee’s work. As the prosecutor stated, Steve Bannon ‘chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,’” they said in a joint statement.

“Just as there must be accountability for all those responsible for the events of January 6th, anyone who obstructs our investigation into these matters should face consequences.No one is above the law,” the continued.

Former Trump aide Steve Bannon spoke to reporters as he left the court in Washington, DC, after being found guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress, saying “we may have lost the battle here today, but we’re not going to lose the war.”

“I want to start by thanking the jury. We respect their jury decision today,” he said.

Bannon said that, in the Justice Department’s closing argument, “the prosecutor missed one very important phrase – I stand with Trump and the Constitution and I will never back off that, ever.”

His attorney David Schoen said they planned to appeal the verdict, calling it a “bullet proof appeal.”

“This is bullet proof appeal. Have you ever in another case seen a judge say six times in a case that he thinks the standard for willfulness is wrong. He’s saying it doesn’t comport with modern jurisprudence, he said it doesn’t comport with the standard definition, but he is saying his hands were bound by a 1961 decision. You will see this case reversed on appeal,” he told reporters.

A federal jury found Bannon guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

He faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.

Watch Bannon and his attorney speak to reporters outside the courthouse:

See Also

Steve Bannon sentenced to 4 months in prison for defying Jan. 6 committee subpoena, but remains free, pending appealSteve Bannon sentencing: Jail term shows January 6 risks for TrumpSteve Bannon’s trial: Live updates | CNN PoliticsJuly 21 Steve Bannon trial news | CNN Politics

Video Ad Feedback

0b596e9b-1e82-43b1-a966-0a12897617aa.mp4

04:24 - Source: cnn

In a Justice Department news release touting the conviction, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia said that the “subpoena to Stephen Bannon was not an invitation that could be rejected or ignored.”

Steven M. D’Antuono, assistant director in charge of the FBI Washington Field Office, said in the statement that “The tenets of our government rely upon citizens adhering to the established rules of law.”

“Lawful tools, such as subpoenas and other legal orders, are critical in our system of government,” D’Antuono said.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s conviction is a victory for the House Jan. 6 select committee as it continues to seek the cooperation of reluctant witnesses in its historic investigation.

It is also a victory for the Justice Department, which is under intense scrutiny for its approach to matters related to the Jan. 6 attack.

Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury in November after he blew off October deadlines for producing the documents and testimony the committee had subpoenaed.

In demanding his cooperation, the committee had pointed to Bannon’s contacts with Trump in the lead up to the Capitol assault, his presence in the so-called war room of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington the day before the riot, and a prediction he made on his podcast before the riot that “all hell” was going to “break loose.”

“In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions,” the House committee report recommend a contempt resolution against him said. The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt in October.

Bannon is one of two uncooperative witnesses to be charged so far by the Justice Department for contempt of Congress. Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury last month for not complying with a committee subpoena and has pleaded not guilty.

When the House committee was demanding his cooperation, Bannon’s lawyer claimed that Trump’s stated assertions of executive privilege prevented Bannon from testifying or producing arguments — an argument the committee roundly rejected. Lawmakers noted that Bannon had for years not been a government official, while pointing to their interest to topic areas not involving conversations with Trump.

At the trial, however, Bannon’s arguments about executive privilege were not a central focus — even as his lawyers found ways to bring attention to the issue. They did so in the face of rulings from the judge deeming it largely irrelevant, under appellate precedent, to the elements of the contempt crime.

Before the verdict was announced, former Trump aide Steve Bannon had come into the courtroom before the jury reassembled in a relatively buoyant mood. He threw his face mask down on the table as soon as he arrived, then sat on his phone for several minutes, a few times showing his lawyer a message.

Once the jury assembled, and before the verdict was read, he had one hand bracing the table, and glanced at the jurors just a few times, primarily watching the judge. He smiled and smirked after the verdict was read, and then patted his lawyers on back.

The jury foreperson read the verdict in a soft voice. She wore a green face mask —and the rest of the jury all kept their masks on as well.

The jury then answered in unison, “yes,” guilty was their verdict.

Bannon nodded briefly when the judge thanked the jury for their service. Before he exits the courthouse, he is stopping at the probation office.

US District Judge Carl Nichols has set Steve Bannon’s sentencing for Oct. 21.

A federal jury found Bannon guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

In the courtroom, Bannon smiled as they read the verdict. He looked back and forth between the courtroom deputy and the foreperson.

Bannon faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.

Oct. 14, the date that the judge set for the Justice Department to submit its sentencing recommendation, will be the one year to the day of when Bannon failed to show up for the testimony demanded in the House Jan. 6 committee subpoena.

A federal jury found former Trump adviser Steve Bannon guilty on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

These are the two counts he was found guilty of:

Bannon faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.

The conviction is a boost for the House Jan. 6 Committee’s investigation and the congressional power to subpoena documents and testimony. It is also a victory for the Justice Department, which is under intense scrutiny for its approach to matters related to the Jan. 6 attack.

After two days of hearing evidence and witness testimony, the jury reached a unanimous verdict in less than three hours.

The jury weighing former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress charges has reached a verdict, US District Judge Carl Nichols announced.

The jury deliberated for nearly three hours.

The jury in Steve Bannon’s criminal contempt of Congress case has sent a note to the judge, a court official told CNN.

Lawyers from both sides in the case are assembling in the courtroom.

Here’s a look at artist Bill Hennessy’s sketch from Friday’s proceedings at the federal court where former President Donald Trump aide Steve Bannon is on trial on charges of contempt of Congress.

There are no cameras allowed in the federal courtroom in Washington, DC, but the artist’s sketch provides a glimpse of the events unfolding inside.

Bannon’s defense attorney Evan Corcoran and prosecutor Molly Gaston can be seen speaking to the jury in the sketch above as US District Judge Carl Nichols sits behind.

This sketch below shows Bannon routinely texting during breaks.

Earlier today, closing arguments took place. The jury has been deliberating on the case since 11:37 a.m. ET.

US District Judge Carl Nichols adjourned former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s trial for jury deliberations at 11:37 a.m. ET.

Bannon is on trial on misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges for failing to comply with subpoenas from the committee.

Rebutting Steve Bannon’s defense team’s closing argument, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn took aim at the recent offer by the former President Donald Trump aide to testify for the House Select Committee investigating the riot at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Bannon is on trial on misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges for failing to comply with subpoenas from the committee.

“You know what’s really going on there,” Vaughn told the jury, noting that Bannon didn’t comply for many months and how the offer only came just before his criminal trial.

“He and his friend, former President Trump, suddenly decide he’s going to comply? Give me a break!” she said. “Don’t be fooled by that.”

She told the jury that “the only purpose of those letters is so the defendant could come in” and try to convince the jury “that a deadline is not a deadline.”

The letter was “nothing but a ploy. And it’s not even a good one,” she said, explaining it’s because Bannon didn’t say he’d provide documents at all.

Steve Bannon’s attorney Evan Corcoran veered several times into subjects the court wouldn’t allow him to discuss with the jury as he wrapped up his closing argument for Bannon’s innocence.

A patter of objections from the Justice Department team that the judge agreed with led to a rocky final few minutes of Bannon’s case.

Among other things, Corcoran tried to allude to the politics of the House select committee, which Judge Carl Nichols had ruled had no role in the prosecution of the case.

He suggested maybe Bannon and his attorney made a mistake, before being cut off with an objection from DOJ.

Corcoran then began to speak about listening to a foreign country’s news while drinking his morning coffee, hearing about “people in power” trying to “silence the opposition.” That too prompted an objection, which the judge agreed with as well.

“We come to our political views honestly … no one should … face a criminal prosecution … based on politics,” he then said. Another objection, and more agreement from the judge.

Barely pausing by the end as the objections rolled in, Corcoran ended his speech saying, “politics can play no role.”

“It’s important we are all in this together, and Steve Bannon is innocent,” Corcoran said, his last words to the jury.

After a brief recess taken after the defense’s closing arguments, the trial has resumed, and the Justice Department presenting its rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument.

Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn is arguing the rebuttal.

Steve Bannon’s attorney Evan Corcoran tried his hand at his own metaphor for the jury, after prosecutors minutes earlier compared their congressional contempt case to a parking ticket.

Corcoran’s comparison was slightly more tortured: He spoke about the potential bias of the DOJ’s primary witness, Kristin Amerling, a House Select Committee staffer who worked on the subpoena and the committee’s responses to Bannon, pointing out that she had been in a book club with a prosecutor.

Corcoran explained that if a family had a relative who died and needed to settle the estate, they would bring in a neutral mediator. But if that mediator had been in a book club and known for a long time one of the members of the family, that might raise questions about the neutrality.

“That would make you question whether they’re impartial…and that’s a reasonable doubt,” Corcoran told the jury.

Corcoran is now trying to use another metaphor for his defense argument, but prosecutor Molly Gaston objected, and the court is having another conversation with the legal teams out of earshot of the jury.

Steve Bannon’s attorney Evan Corcoran is delivering his closing argument, but his presentation hasn’t been as smooth as the government’s.

Twice, he has been significantly interrupted by objections from the prosecutors and the judge wanting to have a private conversation with him about the boundaries of what he can say.

Corcoran tried to raise the possibility that the technical procedures of Bannon receiving a valid subpoena weren’t followed. At one point, he tried to suggest the subpoena may not have had the “legit” signature of House Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson. But prosecutors objected, and after a brief private discussion, Corcoran resumed his presentation, veering to other points.

Bannon’s defense team has complained repeatedly throughout the trial that District Judge Carl Nichols has limited his possible defenses too severely for the trial to be fair.

As she neared the end of her closing, prosecutor Molly Gaston described Steve Bannon’s conduct as a betrayal to his duties as a citizen, and said that he had “contempt” for the government and for playing by the rules.

Earlier in the remarks, she went over the elements of the crime and pointed to the evidence the government presented that she said satisfied every one of them. She stressed that Bannon’s compliance was not a mistake, noting a person who had misunderstood the directions of the subpoena or had not followed it by accident would have “spoken up” when the committee put him on notice for the contempt resolution.

“His belief that he had an excuse not to comply does not matter, that is not a defense to contempt,” she said.

She told the jury to not “fall for it” if Bannon’s lawyers tried to argue that the subpoena deadlines weren’t firm.

“Mr. Corcoran has tried to tell you that this case is about politics,” she said, telling the jury that it was Bannon who was trying to make this case about politics and that he was doing that to “distract you.”

Praising the jury for their service, she said “we are all participants in shared democracy, but the defendant does not agree.

“He has contempt for our system of government and he does not think he needs to play by its rules,” Gaston said. “The defendant chose defiance, find him guilty,” she said.

Prosecutor Molly Gaston argued to the jury that Steve Bannon’s congressional subpoena is similar to a parking ticket — an analogy that could hit home with the jury of Washington, DC, residents.

She explained that a congressional subpoena works just like a parking ticket you might find on your car. If a person finds one on their windshield, they have two options, she said: Pay it, or try to provide the DC government with a reason arguing against it. If the DC government rejects the excuse, that’s it — the parking ticket has to be paid.

“What he doesn’t get to do is ignore the order to pay it,” Gaston said. If it’s not paid, there are consequences, she noted, including the ticket doubling in price.

That’s just like Bannon’s subpoena, Gaston said, because he had a deadline, the committee rejected his reason, and yet he still didn’t respond.

The jury includes several DC and federal government employees, as well as a physician, a former union staffer and an architect.

And DC is a city with many and sometimes complicated parking restrictions — and ticketing is aggressive.

Molly Gaston began the DOJ’s closing argument by framing the case as a simple one.

“This case is not complicated, but it is important,” Gaston told the jury.“This is a simple case about a man, that man, who didn’t show up.”

She said that Steve Bannon “did not want to recognize Congress’ authority or play by the government’s rules.”

“Our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they do not,” she said.

Closing arguments have begun in the trial of former President Donald Trump aide Steve Bannon.

Molly Gaston is presenting for the Justice Department.

The jury has been brought in and Judge Carl Nichols is reading them the jury instructions.

After this is complete, both sides will present closing arguments, and then the jury will be excused for deliberations.

Steve Bannon’s team has flagged for the judge that Bannon was mentioned during the House Select Committee hearing Thursday night. They are asking for Judge Carl Nichols to consider quizzing jurors on whether they watched the special news coverage.

“The nature and substance of the segment present a significant cause for concern regarding possible prejudice to Mr. Bannon’s constitutional fair trial rights and right to a jury trial if a juror viewed the segment of was made aware of it in some manner,” Bannon’s team wrote.

The jury has been told daily not to consume news coverage that could relate to the case, and even to turn off their phone notifications for news apps.

The House Select Committee gaveledinto its prime-time hearing Thursday without a resolution in Steve Bannon’s trial — and without the information they sought from him nine months ago.

During testimony at the trial this week, a select committee staffer reaffirmed the committee is still interested in receiving information from Bannon. That wouldn’t change the fact that he defaulted on the subpoena, prosecutors pointed out, but the House has made clear it’s still interested in areas Bannon knows about.

Among the areas the committee wanted to explore with him: What took place at the Willard Hotel, an unofficial command center for former President Donald Trump allies hoping to overturn the election results, in the run-up to Jan. 6.

Ultimately, the topic of the Willard war room has not been deeply explored in any of the committee’s eight public hearings. And why not? The real possibility remains that Bannon’s refusal to cooperate has, at least in some areas, managed to stymy the committee’s work.

The proceedings in the trial of former President Donald Trump aide Steve Bannon gaveled in at 9:13 a.m. ET.

Jury instructions, closing arguments and deliberations are expected to happen today.

After four days of testimony, the jury is likely to hear closing arguments from both sides on Friday as Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress trial wraps up.

The jury was sent home on Thursday night to give the judge time to work on some legal decisions that need to happen at the end of the case.

Next, the jury will be instructed on how to consider the case, then hear prosecutors’ and defense closing arguments Friday. After that, they will begin deliberations.

Some context: Some trials have entire mornings or afternoons dedicated to closing arguments. But this trial was short, with only two witnesses. And opening statements took fewer than 40 minutes in total, meaning the closings could be relatively brief as well.

Bannon’s team earlier Thursday announced they would not call any witnesses nor would Bannon testify in his own defense.

The jury in Steve Bannon’strial on contemptof Congress charges is likely to start deliberations after hearing closing arguments from both sides on Friday.

Fourteen jurors — 9 men and 5 women — were sworn in at the federal district courthouse in Washington, DC, after being finalized on Tuesday.

The jury includes a State Department employee, an art salesperson, a NASA contractor, a doctor, an architect and a handful of DC government employees.

Some of the jurors have extensive previous experience serving on juries, according to their statements in court yesterday. The jury has 14 people because two alternates are in the pool, and won’t be disclosed publicly until deliberations.

Some context:During the first portion of Monday’s jury selection process, potential jurors were not pressed about their general feelings about Bannon or former President Trump.

They were, however, asked about their news consumption of the House investigation of the Jan. 6 insurrection and about this case itself. Some said they’d consumed a little of the House hearings, if that.

Many of the potential jurors had said they’d heard minimally about Bannon’s case, yet a large number of them had taken in at least some of the select committee’s public hearings. But awareness alone wasn’t enough for them to be tossed from the jury pool.