Deliberations have begun in the contempt trial of former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who is accused of ignoring a subpoena from the congressional committee investigating the January 6 riot at the US Capitol.
“This case is not complicated, but it is important,” prosecutor Molly Gaston said during closing arguments on Friday.
She told jurors Mr Bannon “chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law” and ignored the committee’s requests for information about the Capitol insurrection.
Sending Mr Bannon a subpoena was an early priority for the committee, owing to his reported presence in the infamous Willard Hotel “war room” of Trump allies in Washington DC, on 5 January. The Trump ally had also made previous predictions on his podcast that “all hell” was “going to break loose” on January 6.
Mr Bannon himself did not testify during the contempt trial, but his defence argued the committee’s subpoenas were invalid and politically driven, anchored by “placeholder” deadlines that were still subject to negotiation.
The Trump adviser “didn’t intentionally refuse to comply with a subpoena. Absolutely not. He didn’t intentionally refuse to comply with anything,” his attorney M Evan Corcoran argued.
If convicted, Mr Bannon could serve between 30 days and a year for each of his two misdemeanor charges, though that’s rare for this kind of offence.
In addition to the main verdict, there are two other issues in the trial awaiting a ruling.
The defence has argued prosecutors haven’t met their burden of proof, and that US District Judge Carl J Nichols wrongly rejected a request to call in January 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson for questioning.
Judge Nichols has said he will decide on these two questions once the jury returns a verdict or is discharged.
Mr Bannon’s attorneys have also indicated they may challenge the judge’s rulings that an individual charged with contempt of Congress can’t offer the defence that they were relying on the advice of counsel or thought they were barred from testimony by executive privilege.
The Trump adviser has argued he thought he couldn’t cooperate with the committee until he got Donald Trump’s sign-off.
Mr Trump, meanwhile, has indicated through his attorneys that he never formally invoked executive privilege that would’ve kept Mr Bannon from cooperating with the January 6 inquiry.
During the contempt trial, an attorney for the January 6 committee said neither the former president nor Mr Bannon went through the formal process to raise concerns about executive privilege issues.
Given this fact, prosecutors say Mr Bannon has no legitimate defence.
“There is nothing political about figuring out why January 6 happened, and how to make sure it never happens again,” argued Ms Gaston. “And there is nothing political about enforcing the law against someone who, like the defendant, flouts it.”
The Trump adviser has also argued that the committee singled Mr Bannon out among hundreds of witnesses for special scrutiny, and that one of the prosecutors in the case previously worked with and currently belongs to the same book club as the committee staffer called in to testify.
