WASHINGTON—The contempt of Congress charge levied against former White House aide Steve Bannon cannot be proven, lawyers for the defendant told a jury in federal court on July 19.
Bannon is on trial for defying subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives committee investigating the breach of the U.S. Capitol, which occurred on Jan. 6, 2021.
Bannon ignored warnings that he could face criminal prosecution if he did not comply with the subpoena, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said.
“When you ignore a subpoena, that’s a crime,” she said. “That is why we are here today.”
But Evan Corcoran, a lawyer for Bannon, challenged that narrative, saying that the subpoena was not ignored.
The evidence will show there was “direct engagement” and prolonged negotiations between lawyers for Bannon and the government because of questions about what materials and testimony Bannon could give, Corcoran said.
There will also be no evidence that shows Bannon “willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear in a congressional office on Oct. 14,” Corcoran said. “The date was the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation, so the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steve Bannon committed a crime.”
After Bannon did not appear before Congress in October 2021, the House voted to hold Bannon in contempt, and a grand jury indicted Bannon several weeks later on two counts of contempt of Congress.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the panel, said a day after the failure to appear that Bannon had “willfully failed to both produce a single document and to appear for his scheduled deposition.”
Bannon has said he could not hand over materials or testify because the subpoena sought records protected by executive privilege, which had been asserted by former President Donald Trump. His lawyers said that Bannon would not testify until the panel reached an agreement with Trump, or a court ruling settled the matter. Thompson said that Bannon, who was a Trump aide in 2017, could still testify about and hand over documents relating to matters outside of the privilege.
Vaughn, the prosecutor, said that the case “is about a guy who refused to show up.”
“Yes, it’s that simple,” she said.
By John Haughey and Zachary Stieber
