Comment on this story
Comment
A federal judge on Monday refused to delay the trial of Stephen K. Bannon next week after the Justice Department asked for a former Trump aide’s bid to testify before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, uprising, a “last-ditch attempt to avoid accountability” for allegations of criminal contempt in Congress.
“I see no reason to lengthen this case further,” U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols said in dismissing a series of Bannon defenses. after a hearing, including his claim that Donald Trump had claimed the executive’s privilege over his testimony and documents. The judge narrowed Bannon’s defenses at trial primarily to whether he understood the timelines for responding to lawmakers’ demands.
“While I am certainly aware of Mr Bannon’s concerns regarding advertising, in my view the right mechanism at this time to address this concern is through the [jury selection] process, ”Nichols said, adding that he considered it“ unlikely ”that the court could not find impartial jurors.
Bannon, 68, Trump’s former chief strategist, was charged in November with two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with a committee summons previously issued by his testimony and records about his actions that led to the Capitol riot by a pro-Trump. mob on January 6th. Minor offenses are punishable by at least 30 days or up to one year in prison after the conviction.
Bannon’s lawyers tried to delay his trial until October, saying the House committee’s ongoing hearings on the siege of the Capitol and lawmakers’ statements have fueled a “media attack,” which has contaminated the group. of possible juries.
Steve Bannon charged after refusing to comply with January 6 committee summons
“Select committee members are trying to get a message across to the public: that President Donald J. Trump and his close advisers are responsible for the attack” and “that President Trump’s close advisers have not cooperated with the committee select, ”Bannon’s lawyers say. David I. Schoen and M. Evan Corcoran argued, the same circumstances raised by their case.
In an overnight presentation, U.S. prosecutors urged Nichols to keep Bannon’s trial set for July 18. and withholding from jurors Bannon’s “sudden desire to testify,” which they called an 11-hour ploy to eliminate the conduct that stimulated his prosecution.
“It is important to vindicate the statute and authority of Congress in these matters to quickly adjudicate the criminal matter,” U.S. Deputy Attorney Molly P. Gaston argued to Nichols in court.
It would set “a bad precedent” and reward another kind of “contempt and obstruction” to allow Bannon to challenge the committee, trigger criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice, and occupy the record of a federal court only to say on the eve of the trial that will comply. hoping to dismiss his criminal case, Gaston said.
Bannon, hanging possible testimonies, brings a new focus to the January 6 paper
Nichols, a 2019 Trump nominee who served in George W. Bush’s Justice Department from 2005 to 2009, said Bannon could argue before a jury if he believed the window for compliance remained open. But the judge dismissed other defenses, saying Bannon could not argue that he thought he was protected by executive privilege, that he believed previous Justice Department policy statements about the privilege that applied to White House aides covered him, or that the House panel was invalid because the Republicans had boycotted him to a great extent.
None of the Justice Department’s previous statements “refer to a situation involving actions committed by a non-governmental employee of a president who at the time of the summons was no longer in office,” Nichols said.
In fact, Nichols argued that Trump never invoked the privilege for Bannon. The former president’s attorney instructed Bannon only “if necessary” to invoke any immunity and privilege he might have from forced witnesses or from producing privileged materials, the judge said.
The judge read a follow-up to Trump’s attorney, Justin Clark, who stated that his initial letter “did not indicate that we believe there is immunity from testimony for your client. As I told you the other day, no we believe there is ”.
When Schoen objected after the sentence, “What’s the point of going to trial if there are no defenses?”
Nichols simply replied, “Okay.”
Monday’s hearing came a day after Bannon’s attorney, Robert J. Costello, wrote to House panel president Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), Saying, “Mr. Bannon is willing to, and in fact prefer, testify at your public hearing. “
Bannon’s offer to appear live and unedited before the select committee of the House investigating the events of January 6 came days before the panel set a hearing for Tuesday on Trump’s White House ties with national extremist groups.
It followed Trump’s combative letter Saturday that offered to relinquish his disputed claim for executive privilege for Bannon to test after all on the condition that the committee accept the election of his former White House strategist of “a moment and a half. place “.
“I saw how unfairly you have been treated to yourself and others,” Trump said in the letter. “Therefore, if you reach an agreement on the time and place for your testimony, I will waive the privilege of the Executive, which will allow you to enter and testify in a truthful and fair manner, at the request of the Unselect Committee of thugs and political thugs. Hacks, who have not allowed any due process, no interrogation, no members or real Republican witnesses. “
Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty, argued that he refused to respond to a Sept. 23 committee citation in part on Costello’s advice, saying Trump asserted the executive’s privilege over the appearances of the his former assistants.
“This is not an 11-hour move by Mr. Bannon,” Schoen said dit. “His position of principles has been that he had his hands tied … because of his understanding of executive privilege, his respect for executive privilege invoked by a former president. And now they have untied his hands for the first time.”
Bannon’s attorneys urged Nichols to allow them to argue before a jury that was selectively prosecuted for political reasons, noting that the Justice Department has refused to prosecute two other high-ranking Trump aides. which the committee had referred to out of contempt: the former head of the White House. of staff Mark Meadows and head of communications Daniel Scavino Jr.
Bannon’s defense has assured that the department’s Legal Advisory Office has issued opinions on the position that if the president invokes the privilege of the executive, his top aides cannot testify.
Nichols was not convinced. None of Bannon’s defenses were relevant as to what the government should do to prove guilt, the judge said: that his omission or refusal to appear was deliberate and intentional, not that he knew or should have of having known that his conduct was illegal, nor that he allegedly relied on his lawyer’s advice or the invocation of Trump’s privileges.
“Thinking that one is legally excluded or thinking that a subpoena is invalid is not the same as thinking that the response date was suspended,” said Nichols, the only valid type of “misunderstanding” that allows the court precedent. of binding appeal.
In Bannon’s convincing appearance, the House committee wrote that he wanted information about his activities at the Willard Hotel before the riots, when Trump supporters discussed ways to revoke the results of the 2020 election. committee claimed Bannon was there during an “effort to persuade members of Congress to block certification the next day” and called for his statement on this and other January 6-related activities.
The citation noted that Bannon predicted that “hell will spread” on January 6, and the committee’s report recommending that he be considered out of contempt said the comments indicated that “he had some preconception about extreme events. which would occur the next day. ”
Costello, who has withdrawn from Bannon’s criminal case because he said he could be called as a witness, refused to cooperate with the committee in October, and wrote that he was contacted by Trump’s lawyer Clark and ordered him not to answer. Costello said Bannon he would not cooperate without a court order or committee agreement with Trump.
At the government presentation Monday night, prosecutors revealed they had interviewed Clark and said the former president’s lawyer never asked or was asked to attend Bannon’s House’s statement that Costello went misrepresenting to the committee what Clark told him and that Clark “made it clear to The Defendant’s Counsel that the letter provided no basis for total breach.”
Prosecutors have argued that the executive’s privilege provided no basis for Bannon’s total refusal to appear and that he was even forced to appear before lawmakers and invoke him in response. specific topics. Bannon left the White House in 2017 and was summoned to testify and documents about events that took place while he was a private citizen, they said.
“As they are [Bannon’s] comments on her podcast covered by executive privilege? ”Amanda R. Vaughn rhetorically asked the U.S. assistant prosecutor in court, or her conversations with GOP lawmakers.
Nichols acknowledged that it might seem “abnormal” that a jury could not hear a defendant’s version of the story. He said he had his personal reservations, but this binding judicial precedent prevented most of Bannon’s defenses from going to trial. Nichols said Bannon could appeal later.
Nichols, who also presides over the civil lawsuits of half a dozen witnesses challenging the committee’s Jan. 6 summonses, rejected Bannon’s arguments that they attacked the legitimacy of the House panel or the legal force of the House. their actions.
“By making derogatory references and presenting various briefings, the whole House has ratified on multiple occasions that the committee is validly constituted and …