WASHINGTON — Stephen Ok. Bannon, a former prime adviser to President Donald J. Trump, was convicted on Friday of two counts of contempt of Congress, months after he had defied a subpoena to reply questions from the House choose committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.
The jury deliberated for lower than three hours. The responsible verdict got here after weeks of heated speeches by Mr. Bannon exterior the federal courthouse in Washington, a prolonged jury choice course of and a speedy trial {that a} choose had vowed to hold from changing into “a political circus.” It additionally arrived sooner or later after video of Mr. Bannon briefly appeared in a public listening to of the House committee he had snubbed, as investigators performed a clip of him saying that Mr. Trump had deliberate to declare victory within the 2020 election, it doesn’t matter what the outcomes had been.
Although Mr. Bannon was discovered responsible of what amounted to a low-level course of crime, his conviction was the primary of an in depth aide to Mr. Trump to consequence from one of the chief investigations into the Capitol assault. Another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, has additionally been charged with contempt after defying a subpoena from the committee and is scheduled to go on trial in November.
Mr. Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, was indicted final November. Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor crime, with every depend punishable by a high quality of up to $1,000 and a most of 12 months in jail. At the time, the submitting of fees towards him was broadly seen as a litmus take a look at for whether or not the Justice Department would take an aggressive stance towards any of Mr. Trump’s prime allies because the House seeks to develop a fuller image of the actions of the previous president and his inside circle earlier than and through the assault.
Despite the authorized wranglings that preceded his trial, Mr. Bannon’s guilt or innocence in the end turned on an easy query: whether or not he had defied the House committee by flouting its subpoena. “This case is not complicated, but it is important,” Molly Gaston, a federal prosecutor, mentioned in a closing assertion on Friday.
Key Revelations From the Jan. 6 Hearings
Ms. Gaston instructed the jury that the House committee had wished to ask Mr. Bannon about his presence on the Willard Hotel earlier than the Capitol assault and about his assertion the day earlier than the assault that “all hell” was going to break unfastened on Jan. 6.
But, she argued, Mr. Bannon had blatantly disregarded the committee’s calls for so as to shield his former boss.
“The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” Ms. Gaston mentioned.
During his personal summation, M. Evan Corcoran, one of Mr. Bannon’s attorneys, sought to argue that the subpoena his shopper had acquired had been improperly signed by the committee, including for the jury that Mr. Bannon had not deliberately failed to adjust to it. Mr. Corcoran additionally famous, attempting to recommend a whiff of impropriety, {that a} prosecutor on the case and one of the federal government’s witnesses had belonged to the identical guide membership.
Before courtroom began on Friday, Mr. Bannon’s authorized crew made a written request to Judge Carl J. Nichols to ask the jurors if they’d watched what the crew described because the “highly inflammatory segment” of the Thursday night time committee listening to that had featured Mr. Bannon. But Judge Nichols declined to ballot the jurors.
Like many defendants, Mr. Bannon didn’t mount a protection case for the jury, deciding as an alternative to depend on cross-examining the prosecution’s two witnesses: a lawyer for the committee and an F.B.I. agent who had labored on the case.
Last week, the attorneys instructed that Mr. Bannon would possibly take the stand, however ultimately he determined towards testifying.
Testimony within the trial ended on Wednesday because the prosecution rested its case towards Mr. Bannon, arguing that he had willfully ignored the subpoena for each information and testimony even after being warned that he might face legal fees.
The continuing got here down to the straightforward proven fact that Mr. Bannon had “thumbed his nose” on the legislation, prosecutors mentioned.
Mr. Bannon’s attorneys countered that the deadlines set by the committee to obtain their shopper’s testimony and paperwork had been versatile, one of the few traces of argument Judge Nichols had left open to the protection. In pretrial rulings, Judge Nichols had mentioned that the attorneys weren’t allowed to argue to the jury that Mr. Bannon had acquired authorized recommendation to disregard the subpoena or declare that Mr. Trump had personally approved him to achieve this.
“Mr. Bannon has a full story for why he didn’t show up — his advice of counsel, the invocation of executive privilege, questions about its validity and so on,” David I. Schoen, one other lawyer for Mr. Bannon argued in courtroom this week, earlier than the trial had begun. “All of these defenses and his story of the case have been barred by the court at the government’s request.”
With his choices restricted, Mr. Corcoran contended through the trial that the subpoena and the prosecution’s case itself had been politically motivated.
Before the trial started, Mr. Bannon reversed course and provided to testify earlier than the Jan. 6 committee. But prosecutors have portrayed that transfer as a last-ditch try to keep away from the costs.
Judge Nichols additionally denied a number of requests from the protection to delay the trial, first stemming from issues that the general public hearings held by the Jan. 6 committee and steady information protection of the trial would taint the jury pool and later as a result of the protection mentioned it was unprepared to argue its case after the constraints Judge Nichols had positioned on its potential arguments.
