The Washington Post reports, Jury selection begins in Steve Bannon contempt trial:
Jury selection is underway in the federal trial of Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser and right-wing podcaster charged with two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with an order from the House Jan. 6 committee to turn over records and testify about his actions ahead of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
There are only two questions which the jury has to answer:
- Did Bannon turn over the documents requested? (No).
- Did Bannon show up for his deposition and answer questions or assert his defenses? (No).
Case closed. Verdict: Guilty. Why are we here, and why is this criminal wasting our time?
The committee issued a subpoena to Bannon saying it wanted to question him about activities at the Willard Hotel [the Coup Command Center] the night before the riot, when supporters of President Donald Trump sought to persuade Republican lawmakers to overturn the 2020 election results. The committee said Bannon spoke with Trump by telephone that morning and evening, the last time after Bannon predicted “all hell is going to break loose” on Jan. 6. The committee’s report recommending that he be found in contempt said the comments indicated he “had some foreknowledge about extreme events that would occur the next day.”
In declining to testify and turn over records, Bannon claimed executive privilege, and his lawyer said he was contacted by Trump lawyer Justin Clark and instructed not to respond.
His lawyer lied to the court and should be sanctioned for it, and then subject to bar disciplinary proceedings from the bar association.
Politico reported, Trump lawyer interviewed with FBI about Bannon contempt case:
Former President Donald Trump’s attorney Justin Clark interviewed with federal investigators two weeks ago, the Justice Department revealed in a court filing early Monday morning, a significant development that could reverberate in multiple investigations facing Trump’s inner circle.
DOJ prosecutors revealed the June 29 FBI interview in a court filing connected to the criminal contempt case of Steve Bannon.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn said that Clark had confirmed in his June 29 interview what DOJ long suspected: that Trump had never invoked executive privilege to block Bannon from testifying.
According to Vaughn, Clark contradicted multiple claims by Bannon and his defense team, which had long cited correspondence with Clark as the basis for Bannon’s contention that Trump had claimed executive privilege over Bannon’s testimony and records.
Instead, Vaughn said, Clark told DOJ “that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials; that the former President’s counsel never asked or was asked to attend the Defendant’s deposition before the Select Committee; that the Defendant’s attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President’s counsel had told the Defendant’s attorney; and that the former President’s counsel made clear to the Defendant’s attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance.”
This destroyed his reliance on counsel defense.
Arguments over executive privilege are not expected to be the focus of the trial. During a pretrial hearing this month, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols rejected several of Bannon’s defenses, including the executive privilege claim, and narrowed Bannon’s defenses at trial mainly to whether he understood the deadlines for answering lawmakers’ demands.
Nichols agreed with prosecutors’ argument that under binding legal precedent, Bannon’s reasons for not complying with the House panel subpoenas were irrelevant if he willfully disregarded them. The judge also disputed that former president Trump asserted executive privilege for Bannon, or that it would cover the conversations in question because the latter left the White House in 2017 and was a private citizen at the time.
The Washington Post adds, Facing trial, Bannon vows to go ‘medieval,’ but judge says meh (ha!ha!):
Former Trump adviser and right-wing podcaster Stephen K. Bannon bloviated that the contempt of Congress charges against him would become a “misdemeanor from hell” for the Biden administration, but after judicial rulings against his proposed defense, legal experts said his trial set to start Monday could be more of a quick trip through court.
At a recent hearing that left Bannon’s legal strategy in tatters, his lawyer David Schoen asked U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, “What’s the point of going to trial if there are no defenses?” The judge replied simply: “Agreed.”
The judge’s response was a lawyerly way of urging Bannon to seek a plea deal with the government, rather than face long odds at a short trial, said Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor.
“Obviously everyone’s entitled to a trial, but usually if you go to trial there’s some kind of legal or factual dispute that needs to be resolved,” Eliason said. “The judge’s point is, there aren’t really any here. … In those instances, going to trial becomes what prosecutors sometimes call a long guilty plea.”
Jury selection in the case is due to begin Monday, and the trial is likely to be brief — prosecutors say their case will take a day, and given the judge’s limitations on which witnesses Bannon can call and what issues he can raise, it’s unclear how long Bannon’s own case may take, or if he will testify – he won’t.
The Post writes, “charging Bannon and taking him to trial significantly decreases the odds he ever provides evidence to the committee.”
But not necessarily to the Department of Justice. Once convicted, The Department of Justice grand jury currently meeting in Washington, D.C. can subpoena Bannon to testify before the grand jury, and he can be compelled to comply with the subpoena because he has already been convicted, so no Fifth Amendment privilege is available. The DOJ could offer him “use immunity to testify” against his other Coup Plotter co-conspirators for other crimes, for example, seditious conspiracy (the immunized testimony itself cannot be used in a future prosecution against him).
A witness who refuses to testify after being given immunity can be held in contempt of court by a judge and jailed to compel him to testify.