WASHINGTON – Lawyers clashed Friday in closing arguments in the trial of Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald J. Trump, who faces two counts of contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena to provide information to the House committee investigating in January. 6 of 2021, attack on the Capitol.
A jury will now decide whether Mr. Bannon is guilty of misdemeanors punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison. Mr. Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, is the first member of Trump’s inner circle to stand trial in a case stemming from the Capitol attack investigation.
The January 6 committee said that Mr. Bannon is crucial to their investigation because of his closeness to Mr. Trump and a statement he made on January 5, 2021, when he said “all hell” would break loose, seemed to predict. the violence that erupted on the day Congress sat down to certify the results of the 2020 elections.
In closing arguments, the prosecution painted a sober picture of the Capitol riot to emphasize the importance of the committee’s work. Bannon not only ignored the subpoena, the lawyers said, but also usurped the government’s authority because he believed Congress “was beneath him.”
“We’re here because the defendant was in contempt of Congress,” said Molly Gaston, an attorney for the prosecution. “This is a situation where the name of the crime tells you all you need to know.”
Key revelations from the January 6 hearings
Mr. Bannon received clear instructions from the committee on how to comply with the subpoena and was warned of the consequences of not doing so, Ms. Gaston. However, he did not submit documents, testify or negotiate with the committee, he said, and offered invalid excuses for why he could not cooperate.
Government, prosecutors said, “only works when people follow the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they don’t.”
“The defendant chose loyalty to Donald Trump over compliance with the law,” added Ms. Gaston. “The defendant chose the challenge.”
The defense countered the events of Jan. 6 as irrelevant to the case and instead sought to poke technical holes in the prosecution’s argument, arguing that deadlines for serving the subpoena were not set. A lawyer for Mr. Bannon, M. Evan Corcoran, claimed that one of the government’s witnesses, Kristin Amerling, the chief counsel for the January committee, was biased given that she and Ms. Gaston had been to the same book club.
“You have to give Steve Bannon the benefit of the doubt,” Mr. Corcoran.
Mr. Corcoran reiterated that the case was tainted by partisanship, saying that Ms. Amerling was politically motivated because he had spent years working for Democrats in Congress. He also framed the charge as an overreach by people with political power, but the judge stopped him as he tried to make a broader point that the legislature and the presidency are controlled by Democrats.
The closing arguments came hours after the Jan. 6 committee held a public hearing that included audio of Mr. Bannon, days before the 2020 election, describing how Mr. Trump would spread the false claim of a stolen contest.
“He’s going to declare victory,” said Mr. Bannon in a recording that Mother Jones made public last week. “But that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’ll just say he’s a winner.”
On Thursday, the defense asked the judge to acquit Mr. Bannon and chose not to present testimony or evidence to jurors, relying instead on their cross-examination of the prosecution’s two witnesses. Mr. Bannon also chose not to testify, a departure from the defense’s suggestion last week that he would.
Of the former White House officials the committee sought to hold in contempt, the Justice Department brought charges against Mr. Bannon and another former adviser to Mr. Trump, Peter Navarro, who had resisted his subpoenas from the beginning and never negotiated with the committee.
It is unclear when the jury will reach a verdict. Jurors were instructed to keep an open mind, but during jury selection Monday, one member of the jury pool speculated aloud about the outcome of the case.
“Contempt seems pretty straightforward,” he said.