(WASHINGTON) — Senate Democrats on Thursday unveiled their long-awaited marijuana legalization proposal, announcing sweeping legislation that would lift the federal prohibition on the drug and cede power to states to determine how to regulate it.
The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, championed by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., looks to legalize marijuana at the federal level while creating FDA monitoring requirements like those that already exist for tobacco and alcohol.
“Cannabis legalization has proven immensely successful at the state level, so it is time that Congress catches up with the rest of the country,” Schumer said in floor remarks Thursday. “I am proud to be the first Majority Leader ever to say that it is time to end the federal prohibition on cannabis, and this bill provides the best framework for updating our cannabis laws and reversing decades of harm inflicted by the war on drugs.”
Schumer did not announce next steps on the legislation or whether he will attempt to bring it up for further consideration on the Senate floor, though he said he hopes to get something done on marijuana “this year”.
Voter support for legalization is growing. According to April reporting by 538, a majority of registered voters in all 50 states now favor making cannabis legal. Eighteen states, plus Washington, D.C., have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for those over 21.
“I’d ask my colleagues in the Senate to think long and hard about what keeping the federal government stuck in yesteryear means for public health and safety,” Wyden said in a statement. “By failing to act, the federal government is empowering the illicit cannabis market, it’s ruining lives and propping up deeply rooted racism in our criminal justice system, it’s holding back small cannabis businesses from growing and creating jobs in their communities. Cannabis legalization is here, and Congress needs to get with the program.”
But Congress may not be as ready for a federal change. If Schumer does try to move the legislation forward it faces an uphill battle in the Senate. At least 10 Republicans would need to support the measure for it to pass, and not all Democrats would necessarily back it either.
Still, proponents of the legislation say the simple introduction of the bill is a step in the right direction.
“I’m very excited about this day, but it also now gives us momentum to get something done,” Booker said, noting that the bill sponsors are looking for the best path to move the legislation forward.
“I want to stress that this is the beginning of the legislative process, not the end. We are going to work hard to create support for our bill, and I hope we can make more progress towards cannabis reform in the future,” Schumer said.
Lawmakers first introduced a discussion draft of the bill last summer after Schumer branded legalization as a legislative priority for Democrats. Over 1,800 comments later, the senators unveiled a bill today that aims to attend to concerns among both Democrats and Republicans about regulating marijuana.
The bill includes a host of pubic safety measures and regulations, modifies tax policy on marijuana, requires additional federal research on the impact of marijuana use and removes drug testing for federal workers in most cases.
But anti-legalization advocates fear the newly-introduced legislation does not do enough to regulate potency of cannabis, and could pose a threat to children who might be more easily able to access the legalized drug. Randi Schuster, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School at the Center for Addiction Medicine, said at a press conference Thursday that the legislation does not do enough to set limits on products that might be appealing to kids and teens.
“We are in a position where policy has far outpaced the science, and making public policy decisions that are not aligned with science poses risk for quite a serious health concern,” Schuster said.
Critical for proponents, the Democratic proposal also focuses on racial equity. It aims to rectify harm caused by previous federal drug restrictions that have disproportionately impacted communities of color by expunging federal cannabis convictions from records and expanding access to loans and business licenses for those impacted by former federal drug policy.
“This is a comprehensive bill to right a lot of wrongs,” Booker said Thursday. “It’s a really solid restorative justice bill, opens up our nation to extraordinary economic opportunity, would create a tremendous amount of jobs, and would again correct the scales of justice.”
But Kevin Sabet, a former White House adviser for three different administrations, said Thursday he has concerns that the equity proposals aren’t enforceable. Sabet, now the president and CEO of SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), an anti-legalization organization, said legalization could create another dangerous industry like “big alcohol” or “big tobacco.”
“This idea that we are going to turn people who would be poor selling marijuana on the street into successful marijuana millionaires is a dream,” Sabet said. “The idea that we are going to now get it finally right when it comes to marijuana, and everything else we’re going to let go the same but it’s going to change a lot because we’re going to give a few social equity licenses when it comes to marijuana, is a joke.”
The NAACP has previously called for legalization measures that include equal access to business licenses in the marijuana industry.
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year.
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern.
Jul 21, 3:05 PM EDT
Defense rests its case after telling judge they were ‘stymied’
The defense has rested its case and the jury has been sent home for the day, with closing arguments and jury instructions planned for Friday morning.
“Your honor, the defense rests,” Bannon’s attorney Evan Corcoran said before the jury was dismissed for the day.
The move comes after defense attorney David Schoen told Judge Carl Nichols that Bannon was never able to mount a full defense in the trial because the judge limited the types of arguments the defense could make, and because the defense had been unable to question members of the Jan. 6 committee rather than just a staffer.
The defense especially wanted to question committee chairman Bennie Thompson, who signed the subpoena at issue and then referred the case to the Justice Department for prosecution.
“Our view is we’ve been badly stymied in bringing a defense in this case,” Schoen said. Bannon, he said, has been “handcuffed and not able to explain his story of the case.”
Nichols disputed the characterization, telling Schoen that he has simply been following the law in deciding what should be allowed at trial.
Jul 21, 12:49 PM EDT
Attorneys argue over whether subpoena dates were ‘in flux’
In asking the judge to acquit Bannon of the charges against him, defense attorney Evan Corcoran said of the prosecution, “They have not presented evidence upon which a reasonable person could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bannon is guilty of the charges of contempt of Congress.”
Regarding the deadline for Bannon to comply with the subpoena, Corcoran said that “it was clear” from the testimony of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling that “the dates were in flux … but even the dates in the subpoena, she was unable to identify why those dates were in the subpoena at all. She was unable to identify who put those dates in the subpoena. And that’s a critical issue.”
Corcoran also argued that the indictment claims Bannon didn’t provide documents “by Oct. 18, 2021” — but the deadline on the subpoena itself was Oct. 7, 2021, a different date.
“In our view, the return date is either the date on the subpoena, or it’s open” — all of which shows “this was an ongoing negotiation,” Corcoran said.
In response, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said, “The reasons for the dates are irrelevant.”
“The dates are on the subpoena,” Vaughn said. “The committee made clear in its letters to the defendant that those were the dates and that he had violated them, and the evidence is clear that he did not provide documents by Oct. 7 and did not come for his deposition on Oct. 14.”
The government “has provided sufficient evidence” of his guilt, and letters from the time and posts to Bannon’s social media “made clear” that he did not intend to comply, she said.
Jul 21, 12:13 PM EDT
Defense says no witnesses, including Bannon, will take the stand
At the start of the third day of testimony Thursday morning, the defense team in the contempt case against Steve Bannon said in court that they do not plan to call any witnesses to the stand — including Bannon himself — and instead asked the judge to dismiss the case.
“The jury has now heard all the evidence it is going to hear,” U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols subsequently announced.
The move came after the defense team asked the judge to acquit Bannon and rule that the government had not presented enough evidence to warrant continuing the trial.
In making its argument for acquittal, the defense said one of the government’s two witnesses “didn’t add much,” so it’s “really a one-witness case.”
The judge said he wouldn’t rule on the motion for acquittal yet.
Jul 20, 6:18 PM EDT
Bannon again rails at Thompson as he leaves courthouse
For the second day in a row, Bannon blasted Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson on his way out of court at the end of the day.
“Does he really have COVID?” said Bannon of the chairman, who announced Tuesday that he had tested positive for COVID-19.
“What are the odds that a guy that is vaxxed, boosted and double boosted, following Dr. Fauci’s recommendation — what are the odds, on the very day this trial starts, he comes up with COVID?” Bannon said of Thompson’s absence as a witness in his trial.
“Why is Bennie Thompson not here?” Bannon repeated.
-Laura Romero and Soo Rin Kim
Jul 20, 5:55 PM EDT
FBI agent details Bannon’s social posts about subpoena before government rests its case
After just two witnesses, the government rested its case against Steve Bannon.
FBI agent Stephen Hart, the prosecution’s second witness, spent less than an hour on the stand.
Hart spent much of time testifying about Bannon’s page on the social media platform Gettr, which Hart described as “similar to Twitter.”
Prosecutor Molly Gaston showed that on Sept. 24, 2021, the day that Bannon’s subpoena was received by his then-attorney, Robert Costello, Bannon’s Gettr page posted a link to a Rolling Stone article with the words, “The Bannon Subpoena Is Just the Beginning. Congress’s Jan. 6 Investigation is Going Big.” Then on Oct. 8, 2021, the day after he was supposed to produce records to the Jan. 6 committee, Bannon’s Gettr page posted a link to a Daily Mail article with the words, “Steve Bannon tells the January 6 select committee that he will NOT comply with their subpoena.”
The Gettr post included images of Bannon, Trump, and a letter from Costello.
The materials prompted a debate over whether the posts were made by Bannon himself or by someone with access to his account, and whether those were Bannon’s own words or the media outlets’ words.
Gaston then had Hart read from the Daily Mail article, which quoted Bannon as telling the Daily Mail, “I stand with Trump and the Constitution.”
“Those are his words,” Gaston said of Bannon.
Hart also testified about a November 2021 videoconference he and prosecutors had with Costello after Costello requested the meeting to try to convince prosecutors not to pursue the contempt case against Bannon.
Hart testified that during that meeting, Costello told them that by Oct. 7, 2021, the deadline to produce documents, “they had not gathered any documents by that point.” Costello also had no other reason for Bannon’s refusal to comply other than executive privilege, Hart said.
Hart also testified that Costello, in the meeting, did not suggest they thought the deadlines were flexible, or that they were negotiating for a different date, or that Bannon would comply if the committee set different deadlines.
At one point, Corcoran tried to remind jurors that many lawmakers didn’t support the resolution to find Bannon in contempt of Congress. On cross examination, he asked Hart about the investigative steps Hart took in this case, asking him, “Did you interview … the 200-plus members of Congress who voted not to refer Steven Bannon to the U.S. Attorney’s office for contempt of Congress?”
Gaston objected, and the judge agreed, so Corcoran moved on.
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn subsequently stood up and told the judge, “Your honor, the government rests.”
Court will reconvene on Thursday morning.
Jul 20, 4:39 PM EDT
Defense says Bannon was in ongoing negotiations with committee
As his cross-examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling wrapped up, defense attorney Evan Corcoran continued to frame Bannon’s noncompliance with the subpoena as happening at a time when Bannon’s attorney was still in negotiations with the committee.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon wasn’t in negotiations because there was nothing to negotiate — Trump hadn’t actually asserted executive privilege, Amerling said, so there was no outstanding issue to resolve. And she said that the committee had made clear to Bannon repeatedly that there were no legal grounds for his refusal to turn over documents and testify before the committee.
Corcoran showed the jury the letter that Trump sent to Bannon on July 9, 2022 — just two weeks ago — in which Trump said he would waive executive privilege so Bannon could testify before the committee. He also displayed the letter that Bannon’s former attorney, Robert Costello, sent the committee on the same day saying that Bannon was now willing to testify in a public hearing.
But Amerling then read aloud from the letter that the committee sent to Costello in response, noting that Bannon’s latest offer “does not change the fact that Mr. Bannon failed to follow [proper] process and failed to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena prior to the House referral of the contempt resolution concerning Mr. Bannon’s defiance of the subpoena.”
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn noted that before two weeks ago, Bannon never offered to comply with the subpoena, even after being told repeatedly by the committee last year that his claims had no basis in law and that he could face prosecution; even after he was found in contempt of Congress in October last year; even after he was criminally charged a month later for contempt of Congress; and even after a lawsuit related to executive privilege had been resolved by the Supreme Court six months ago.
Amerling testified that had Bannon complied with the subpoena in time, the committee would have had “at least nine months of additional time” to review the information, and now there are “five or so months” left of the committee.
“So as opposed to having 14 in total, the committee only now has five?” Corcoran asked.
“That’s correct,” said Amerling.
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general has turned the inquiry into the Secret Service deleted text messages into a criminal investigation, three sources familiar with the situation confirmed to ABC News Thursday.
The inspector general sent a letter to the Secret Service Wednesday night telling the agency to halt any internal investigations until the criminal probe has been wrapped up.
The inspector general’s office did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.
It is unclear whether this criminal investigation would result in a referral to the Justice department but the inspector general wants the Secret Service to halt its internal review.
“The Secret Service is in receipt of the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s letter,” a Secret Service spokesperson told ABC News in a statement. “We have informed the January 6th Select Committee of the Inspector General’s request and will conduct a thorough legal review to ensure we are fully cooperative with all oversight efforts and that they do not conflict with each other.”
The Secret Service has said it has been cooperating with a House Jan 6 committee subpoena and a National Archives and Records Administration inquiry, according to a source familiar with the situation.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 for the first time Thursday morning, his office said.
Biden, 79, has “very mild symptoms” and is taking Paxlovid, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
Biden is experiencing a dry cough, runny nose and fatigue, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha said. The physician to the president, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, said Biden’s systems started Wednesday evening.
The president went to bed feeling fine but didn’t sleep well and subsequently tested positive in the morning, Jha added.
Jean-Pierre said an update will be provided every day as Biden “continues to carry out the full duties of the office while in isolation” at the White House.
Close contacts, “including any Members of Congress and any members of the press who interacted with the President during yesterday’s travel,” will be informed on Thursday, Jean-Pierre said.
Biden traveled to Somerset, Massachusetts, on Wednesday where he announced executive actions to address climate change. The president greeted Ukrainian first lady Olena Zelenska at the White House on Tuesday.
“He has been in contact with members of the White House staff by phone this morning, and will participate in his planned meetings at the White House this morning via phone and Zoom from the residence,” Jean-Pierre said.
The president will work in isolation until he tests negative, she said.
Biden was last tested for COVID-19 on Tuesday, when he tested negative, she added.
Biden is fully vaccinated and received two boosters; his second booster shot was March 30.
First lady Jill Biden tested negative Thursday morning in Detroit and will keep her full schedule in Michigan and Georgia through the day, her office said. She will continue following CDC guidance with masking and distancing, her office said.
ABC News Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton said the biggest factor in treatment will be the president’s age.
“That is why,” she said, it’s “no surprise that he’s being treated with the antiviral pill Paxlovid. It’s been shown in clinical trials to be 89% effective in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 illness, meaning hospitalization or death.”
Ashton stressed, “He is going to be closely monitored at the White House by the personal physician of the president, and if anything looks like it is going in the wrong direction, I absolutely expect that he would be hospitalized, if nothing else than for more close observation. But remember, the White House is not like your home or my home — they can do a lot of medical monitoring and observation and testing right there.”
Former President Donald Trump was briefly hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center in October 2020 after he tested positive for COVID-19.
Paxlovid, an antiviral pill developed by Pfizer, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for those aged 12 and older in December 2021.
Patients take three pills twice daily over the course of five days. The pill was hailed as a game-changer because it was the first COVID-19 treatment that did not require an infusion, making it more convenient to give to patients.
Paxlovid is made up of two medications: ritonavir, commonly used to treat HIV and AIDS, and nirmatrelvir, an antiviral that Pfizer developed to boost the strength of the first drug. Together, they prevent an enzyme the virus uses to make copies of itself inside human cells and spread throughout the body.
Vice President Kamala Harris tested positive for COVID-19 in April. Dr. Anthony Fauci, a senior adviser to the president on the pandemic, tested positive last month.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating Jan. 6 is holding its second prime-time hearing on Thursday, which will focus on the Trump White House’s reaction to the insurrection as it unfolded.
Following a recent and highly publicized hearing, renewed attention is on witness tampering and the possibility that it was committed by Trump.
During a recent hearing, Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, said that Trump attempted to call a witness in the committee’s investigation into last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation — a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings. That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call and, instead, alerted their lawyer to the call,” Cheney said at the time.
The committee warned against witness tampering as it continues its investigation. “Let me say one more time, we will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney said.
But what is witness tampering, and did Trump possibly commit it?
What is witness tampering?
Witness tampering is a federal crime and is considered a form of obstruction of justice.
According to the Department of Justice, witness tampering occurs when someone tries to “influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.”
“It’s either threatening a witness with some type of harm if the person doesn’t testify in a certain way or doing this thing, which is defined by Congress as correctly persuading someone to say something,” Robert Weisberg, faculty co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, told ABC News. “Unfortunately, Congress has done an absolute horrible job defining the crime.”
Congress has the authority to investigate if a crime took place, but it doesn’t have the power to charge someone with witness tampering — that is left up to the Department of Justice.
A person could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison if found guilty of witness tampering.
Jan. 6 witness Trump allegedly tried to call was White House support staff, sources say
Donald Trump’s alleged witness tampering
The committee has examined not only the insurrection at the Capitol, but also then-President Trump’s possible role in the events leading up to, during and after that day, actions the committee says were a “dereliction of duty” on his part.
Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, has repeatedly criticized the House select committee for its investigation into the Jan. 6 riot, calling it one-sided and politically motivated.
Cheney’s bombshell accusation about Trump raises questions on if he committed a crime and, if so, if there’s enough evidence to charge him.
“It would depend on the strength of the case,” Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor, told ABC News. “When people make calls like that, usually it’s a little more guarded and a little bit of a wink wink, nudge nudge.”
Trump allegedly attempted to call a White House support staffer, a person he wouldn’t normally call, sources said.
Despite not reaching the witness during the purported call, a crime still allegedly took place, this according to guidance from the DOJ under section 18 U.S.C. 1512, “Protection of government processes — Tampering with victims, witnesses or informants.”
“There is no requirement that the defendant’s actions have the intended obstructive effect,” it reads.
Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich sharply criticized Cheney’s accusation while also going after the media — but did not deny her claims.
“The media has become pawns of the Unselect Committee. Liz Cheney continues to traffic in innuendos and lies that go unchallenged, unconfirmed, but repeated as fact because the narrative is more important than the truth,” he tweeted on July 12.
Cheney’s claim against the former president isn’t the first time Trump has been accused of obstructing justice.
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, was convicted in 2018 for tax evasion, violating campaign finance rules and lying to Congress.
For years, Cohen had signaled loyalty to Trump. But after the FBI raided his home in 2018, he was open to cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the then-president.
Cohen’s lawyer said that Trump’s advisers were hinting that he would pardon Cohen following the FBI’s raid into his home. Once Cohen agreed to testify, Trump began publicly attacking his former lawyer and suggested that his father-in-law should be investigated.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform said at the time that “efforts to intimidate witnesses, scare their family members, or prevent them from testifying before Congress are textbook mob tactics that we condemn in the strongest terms. Our nation’s laws prohibit efforts to discourage, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a witness not to provide testimony to Congress.”
In 2019, after a delay, Cohen testified in front of the House Oversight Committee about his time working for his former boss. Cohen said he initially delayed his testimony because of “ongoing threats against his family from President Trump.”
Could Trump be charged?
It’s unlikely Attorney General Merrick Garland will charge Trump, especially if he plans to run for president again, according to Weisberg.
“If he declares he’s running for president, even though that doesn’t give him any immunity from indictment, we know that’s exactly the situation Garland fears, namely indicting someone amidst a presidential campaign, because he doesn’t want the criminal justice systems to distort the political process,” Weisberg said.
“There’s a weird kind of leverage that Trump has here,” he added.
(WASHINGTON) — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold the eighth in its latest string of hearings on Thursday starting at 8 p.m. ET — in prime-time.
Committee aides say the session will zero-in on then-President Donald Trump’s response to the insurrection by a pro-Trump mob, specifically the 187 minutes between his speech at the Ellipse near the White House earlier that day and his public statement telling rioters to go home.
The panel will also discuss what occurred on the remainder of Jan. 6, including a tweet Trump sent around 6 p.m., and the fallout on Jan. 7, 2021.
Trump’s tweet — shortly before he was permanently banned from Twitter, read: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
Aides also emphasized, without providing details, that there would be new evidence presented Thursday and told reporters that there was “no reason to think” this will be the committee’s final hearing, though it is expected to be the last session in the near future.
Two former Trump White House aides are expected to testify, sources previously confirmed to ABC News: former deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews and Matthew Pottinger, who was a member of the National Security Council.
Both Matthews and Pottinger quit on Jan. 6.
ABC News has also learned the committee has outtakes of Trump’s pre-recorded message delivered on Jan. 7, where he condemned the attack on the Capitol and pledged a “seamless transition of power.” But the outtakes tell a different story — showing a president struggling to say the election was over and to condemn the rioters, sources familiar with their contents said.
The sources said the committee may show at least some of the outtakes during Thursday’s hearing but cautioned that plans to do so could change.
Committee aides — previewing the hearing in very broad terms — have said they will show testimony from individuals who spoke to Trump and from those in the West Wing who were aware of what Trump, his staff and his family were doing on Jan. 6.
“What we’ll get into tomorrow is what happened when that speech ended and President Trump, against his wishes, was returned to the White House,” one aide said Wednesday.
“We’re going to demonstrate sort of who was talking to him and what they were urging him to do in that time period,” the aide continued. “We’re going to talk about when he was made aware of what was going on at the Capitol.”
Cassidy Hutchinson, formerly a top aide to Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, previously testified to the committee about a conversation she had with members of Trump’s security detail after the rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6.
Hutchinson said Tony Ornato, the head of the president’s security team, told her that Trump lunged toward his driver in the presidential SUV and tried to grab the steering wheel in a push to be taken to the Capitol with his supporters.
“Tony described him as being irate,” Hutchinson testified. (The Secret Service subsequently said it will respond on the record to Hutchinson’s account.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., will be chairing Thursday’s hearing remotely as he’s recovering from COVID-19. Thompson announced on Monday that he tested positive for the virus and would be isolating for several days, per federal guidelines.
A spokesperson for the committee confirmed the hearing would go on as planned despite Thompson’s diagnosis, noting the panel was wishing him a “speedy recovery.”
Reps. Elaine Luria, D-Va., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., will lead the hearing.
Lawmakers on the committee are also dealing with a revelation about Secret Service records as it relates to Jan. 6.
A government watchdog previously requested messages sent and received by Secret Service personnel around the time of the attack, but a spokesperson for the agency acknowledged last week that text messages from last Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 were deleted after being sought by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.
The agency maintained that the deletion occurred during a device-replacement program and was not “malicious.”
The House committee subpoenaed the Secret Service for the records on Friday and the National Archives and Records Administration asked the agency to account for the lost texts.
The service has only provided a single text exchange to the DHS inspector general, according to an agency letter to the House Jan. 6 committee and obtained by ABC News.
Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said the committee was working to get to the bottom of the situation.
“We continue to work through these issues but clearly that’s not enough,” Aguilar told ABC News.
“There’s a lot more questions to answer, but we have the responsibility to tell the truth and chase the facts and that’s exactly what we plan to do in this regard, as well as our general oversight over the executive department,” Aguilar added.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will unveil on Thursday an expanded budget request to Congress with $37 billion in funding for law enforcement and crime prevention for what the White House is calling his “Safer America Plan.”
But Biden’s request is aspirational — it’s for fiscal year 2023, which for the U.S. government begins this October, and it needs to be approved by Congress. Presidential administrations past and present often make large, ambitious budget requests as a messaging tool, only to see them not come to fruition or to be whittled down.
As part of his “Safer America Plan,” the White House said Biden will request “a fully paid-for new investment of approximately $35 billion to support law enforcement and crime prevention — in addition to the President’s $2 billion discretionary request for these same programs.”
According to the White House, the requested funding would be used in hiring and training 100,000 new police officers for “accountable community policing,” clearing court backlogs, solving murders and setting up community task forces to share intelligence. The funds would also target crimes not directly related to guns, such as fentanyl trafficking.
Moreover, the White House said the plan would establish a $15 billion grant program for states and cities to use over the next 10 years that would prevent violent crime and help in “identifying non-violent situations that may merit a public health response or other response.”
“The President will also continue to call on Congress to take additional actions on guns,” the White House added, “including requiring background checks for all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, closing the dating violence restraining order loophole, and banning the manufacture, sale, or possession of unserialized ‘ghost guns.'”
On Thursday afternoon, Biden will travel to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, where he will deliver remarks on gun violence, firearms legislation and policing at Wilkes University, according to the White House.
The president’s budget request comes in the wake of a string of mass shootings that have taken place across the United States this summer, including one at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, another at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
(WASHINGTON) — Families of several Americans who are detained abroad arrived in Washington on Wednesday morning to unveil a mural depicting them in an effort, their relatives say, to increase public awareness and pressure the Biden administration to do more to bring them home.
The mural features 18 Americans held in other countries. There are currently 64 known citizens being detained outside the U.S., according to the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation.
The mural includes WNBA superstar Brittney Griner and former Marine Paul Whelan, who have become faces of the issue because of their ongoing detentions in Russia. (Griner was arrested and later pleaded guilty to illegally bringing hashish oil into the country, though she said it was “inadvertent” and was part of her vape cartridge. Whelan was charged with espionage, which he and the U.S. government deny.)
The 15-foot-tall installation aims to bring attention to Griner, Whelan and to a series of under-recognized Americans being held around the world, sometimes for political leverage.
Many of the images used for the mural are of the last pictures taken of the detainees.
While Matthew Heath’s portrait depicts him with a soft smile in his crisp Marine uniform from when he served, his mother, Connie Haynes, said he is currently being tortured in Venezuela after more than two years in detention.
She claims Heath has been repeatedly beaten and left with both hands broken and his retina detached and has at random intervals been fed carbon monoxide while locked in a 2 square-foot box.
Heath tried to kill himself this year but was still being abused and chained to his bed in the medical facility where he was being watched, according to his mom.
“My son is not going to survive if our government does not get him home,” she said Wednesday. “I don’t know how much more he can endure.”
During the unveiling, Haynes was interrupted with a call and rushed to end of the alley next to the mural. Her son was trying to reach her.
“We were able to tell him what we’re doing, for him, for the other families — how hard we’re working to try to get him home,” Heath’s uncle, Everrett Rutherford, said afterward.
They were also able to connect Heath with the Biden administration’s special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, Roger Carstens, who spoke Wednesday.
During the rare opportunity to talk with Heath, Rutherford said he and Heath’s mom were able to “give [Heath] a bit of courage and hope.”
State Department spokesman Ned Price on Wednesday called the mural “a powerful symbol of those who have been deprived and taken from their loved ones” and said Carstens’ presence at the unveiling was an important way “to continue to show our support for these families who are enduring an ordeal that to anyone but them is unimaginable.”
“These efforts are — by necessity — quiet,” Price said when asked about the frustration of some of the detainees’ families about the future. “We have found that these cases often are best worked behind the scenes. Even though we don’t speak of it, it doesn’t mean that we aren’t working around the clock to see the successful resolution and outcome.”
The mural’s artist says it was designed to be impermanent.
The Americans’ faces, plastered using flour, water, sugar and paper, will “fade, tear and eventually disappear over time,” Isaac Campbell explained in a press release. That fleeting quality is meant to add a sense of urgency for the government to “use the tools available to bring these Americans home — before their faces fade away and disappear from this wall,” Campbell wrote.
“This doesn’t go away,” said Neda Sharghi, the only sister of Emad Shargi, a dual citizen who has been detained in Iran since 2018 on claims he is a spy.
The siblings’ father, who “felt like there was hope to bring his son home” while watching the unveiling, fainted and was taken away in an ambulance out of the event, Neda Shargi said. “This is our world,” she added.
“Any second my father could pass and not see his son anymore,” she said. “But I don’t want to cry,” she continued, calling on anyone struck by the new mural to call their representatives to “let President [Joe] Biden know that you will all stand with him if he can bring Americans home.”
Wednesday’s ceremony comes one day after Biden signed an executive order that declared hostage-taking and the wrongful detention of U.S. citizens a national emergency.
The order is meant to leverage more financial sanctions against those who are directly or indirectly involved in such detentions. Additionally, the State Department added new warnings on its travel advisories to help citizens avoid locations overseas where they risk wrongful arrest.
The White House informed relatives of American detainees of the executive order before its signing in a Monday call that was characterized as a “one-way conversation” by Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for a network of families and the Bring Our Families Home Campaign. He claimed the White House’s latest actions were “an effort to pre-manage the press attention” around relatives of those detained arriving in Washington this week.
While some families have commended the move to improve transparency and intelligence-sharing between the federal government and concerned relatives of those held overseas, others have expressed vexation with their lack of communication with the president.
“We are definitely grateful,” Hannah Shargi, the daughter of Emad Shargi, told ABC News of Biden’s recent actions. But she said she wants to see, at minimum, meetings between families and Biden organized by the country where their relative is detained.
“We know that they’re suffering. We know they’re scared. And we know they’re anxious,” White House spokesman John Kirby said at a briefing on Tuesday. “We know they want their loved ones back home, and the president wants that, too.”
Meanwhile, they work and they wait.
“I used to walk these streets with him,” Hannah Shargi said Wednesday next to the mural that features her father. “It gives me some hope that he is larger than life here. And he is larger than life in real life — so I’m glad people are seeing him how I see him.”
(WASHINGTON) — Steve Bannon, who served as former President Donald Trump’s chief strategist before departing the White House in August 2017, is on trial for defying a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Bannon was subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 panel for records and testimony in September of last year, with the committee telling him it had “reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.”
After the House of Representatives voted to hold him in contempt for defying the subpoena, the Justice Department in November charged Bannon with two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, setting up this week’s trial.
Here is how the news is developing. All times are Eastern:
Jul 20, 6:18 PM EDT
Bannon again rails at Thompson as he leaves courthouse
For the second day in a row, Bannon blasted Jan. 6 committee Chairman Bennie Thompson on his way out of court at the end of the day.
“Does he really have COVID?” said Bannon of the chairman, who announced Tuesday that he had tested positive for COVID-19.
“What are the odds that a guy that is vaxxed, boosted and double boosted, following Dr. Fauci’s recommendation — what are the odds, on the very day this trial starts, he comes up with COVID?” Bannon said of Thompson’s absence as a witness in his trial.
“Why is Bennie Thompson not here?” Bannon repeated.
-Laura Romero and Soo Rin Kim
Jul 20, 5:55 PM EDT
FBI agent details Bannon’s social posts about subpoena before government rests its case
After just two witnesses, the government rested its case against Steve Bannon.
FBI agent Stephen Hart, the prosecution’s second witness, spent less than an hour on the stand.
Hart spent much of time testifying about Bannon’s page on the social media platform Gettr, which Hart described as “similar to Twitter.”
Prosecutor Molly Gaston showed that on Sept. 24, 2021, the day that Bannon’s subpoena was received by his then-attorney, Robert Costello, Bannon’s Gettr page posted a link to a Rolling Stone article with the words, “The Bannon Subpoena Is Just the Beginning. Congress’s Jan. 6 Investigation is Going Big.” Then on Oct. 8, 2021, the day after he was supposed to produce records to the Jan. 6 committee, Bannon’s Gettr page posted a link to a Daily Mail article with the words, “Steve Bannon tells the January 6 select committee that he will NOT comply with their subpoena.”
The Gettr post included images of Bannon, Trump, and a letter from Costello.
The materials prompted a debate over whether the posts were made by Bannon himself or by someone with access to his account, and whether those were Bannon’s own words or the media outlets’ words.
Gaston then had Hart read from the Daily Mail article, which quoted Bannon as telling the Daily Mail, “I stand with Trump and the Constitution.”
“Those are his words,” Gaston said of Bannon.
Hart also testified about a November 2021 videoconference he and prosecutors had with Costello after Costello requested the meeting to try to convince prosecutors not to pursue the contempt case against Bannon.
Hart testified that during that meeting, Costello told them that by Oct. 7, 2021, the deadline to produce documents, “they had not gathered any documents by that point.” Costello also had no other reason for Bannon’s refusal to comply other than executive privilege, Hart said.
Hart also testified that Costello, in the meeting, did not suggest they thought the deadlines were flexible, or that they were negotiating for a different date, or that Bannon would comply if the committee set different deadlines.
At one point, Corcoran tried to remind jurors that many lawmakers didn’t support the resolution to find Bannon in contempt of Congress. On cross examination, he asked Hart about the investigative steps Hart took in this case, asking him, “Did you interview … the 200-plus members of Congress who voted not to refer Steven Bannon to the U.S. Attorney’s office for contempt of Congress?”
Gaston objected, and the judge agreed, so Corcoran moved on.
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn subsequently stood up and told the judge, “Your honor, the government rests.”
Court will reconvene on Thursday morning.
Jul 20, 4:39 PM EDT
Defense says Bannon was in ongoing negotiations with committee
As his cross-examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling wrapped up, defense attorney Evan Corcoran continued to frame Bannon’s noncompliance with the subpoena as happening at a time when Bannon’s attorney was still in negotiations with the committee.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon wasn’t in negotiations because there was nothing to negotiate — Trump hadn’t actually asserted executive privilege, Amerling said, so there was no outstanding issue to resolve. And she said that the committee had made clear to Bannon repeatedly that there were no legal grounds for his refusal to turn over documents and testify before the committee.
Corcoran showed the jury the letter that Trump sent to Bannon on July 9, 2022 — just two weeks ago — in which Trump said he would waive executive privilege so Bannon could testify before the committee. He also displayed the letter that Bannon’s former attorney, Robert Costello, sent the committee on the same day saying that Bannon was now willing to testify in a public hearing.
But Amerling then read aloud from the letter that the committee sent to Costello in response, noting that Bannon’s latest offer “does not change the fact that Mr. Bannon failed to follow [proper] process and failed to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena prior to the House referral of the contempt resolution concerning Mr. Bannon’s defiance of the subpoena.”
Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn noted that before two weeks ago, Bannon never offered to comply with the subpoena, even after being told repeatedly by the committee last year that his claims had no basis in law and that he could face prosecution; even after he was found in contempt of Congress in October last year; even after he was criminally charged a month later for contempt of Congress; and even after a lawsuit related to executive privilege had been resolved by the Supreme Court six months ago.
Amerling testified that had Bannon complied with the subpoena in time, the committee would have had “at least nine months of additional time” to review the information, and now there are “five or so months” left of the committee.
“So as opposed to having 14 in total, the committee only now has five?” Corcoran asked.
“That’s correct,” said Amerling.
Jul 20, 3:48 PM EDT
Defense argues Bannon was constrained by questions over executive privilege
In the defense’s ongoing cross examination of Jan. 6 committee staffer Kirstin Amerling, attorney Evan Corcoran continued to stress how Bannon was prevented from testifying due to the right of executive privilege that protects confidential communication with members of the executive branch.
But Amerling testified that there are two main issues with such a claim.
First, she said, some of what the subpoena requested “had nothing to do with communication with the former president” and “could not possibly be reached by executive privilege” — especially Bannon’s communications with campaign advisers, members of Congress and other private parties, as well as information related to Bannon’s podcast, she testified.
In addition, despite what others may have said, “The president had not formally or informally invoked executive privilege,” Amerling said. “It hadn’t been invoked.”
Yet Bannon still refused to comply with the subpoena, despite having no legal grounds to do so, she said.
Amerling reiterated that by the time the committee met to decide whether to pursue contempt charges, “there had been extensive back-and-forth already between the select committee and the defendant’s attorney about the issue of executive privilege, and the select committee had made its position clear.”
Corcoran also argued that Bannon didn’t comply with the subpoena right away because he expected the deadline would ultimately change, due to the fact that it’s common for subpoena deadlines to shift.
Amerling, however, testified that Bannon’s situation was different.
“When witnesses are cooperating with the committee and indicate they are willing to provide testimony, it is not unusual to have some back-and-forth about the dates that they will appear,” she said. However, she said, “it is very unusual for witnesses who receive a subpoena to say outright they will not comply.”
In his questions, Corcoran also suggested that Amerling might be a biased witness, noting that she had donated to Democratic causes in the past, and that she is a member of the same book club as one of the prosecutors in the case, Molly Gaston.
“So you’re in a book club with the prosecutor in this case?” Corcoran asked.
“We are,” Amerling replied.
Amerling said that it had been some time — perhaps as much as a year or more — since she and Gaston both attended a meeting of the club. But she conceded that, with the types of people who are in the book club, it was “not unusual that we would talk about politics in some way or another.”
Jul 20, 12:55 PM EDT
Defense attorney presses Jan. 6 staffer on timing of subpoena deadline
Under cross-examination from Bannon defense attorney Evan Corcoran, House Jan. 6 committee senior staffer Kristin Amerling was pressed on why the committee set the deadlines it did for Bannon to comply with the subpoena — especially since “the select committee is still receiving and reviewing documents” now, Corcoran said.
Corcoran pressed Amerling over who specifically decided that Bannon should have to produce documents by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, and who specifically decided that Bannon should have to appear for a deposition on Oct. 14, 2021.
Amerling said that the “process” of drafting the subpoena involved many people, including senior staff like herself, but it was all ultimately approved by committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
“To the best of my recollection, because of the multiple roles that we understood Mr. Bannon potentially had with respect to the events of Jan. 6, at the time that we put the subpoena together, there was a general interest in obtaining information from him expeditiously, because we believed this information could potentially lead us to other relevant witnesses or other relevant documents,” Amerling said. “There was general interest in including deadlines that required expeditious response.”
“The committee authorization is just through the end of this year,” so it is operating under “a very tight timeframe,” she said.
Corcoran also said he wanted to made clear to the jury that, as he put it, “in this case, there is no allegation that Steve Bannon was involved in the attack” on the Capitol.
Earlier, Amerling testified that the committee tried to give Bannon “an opportunity” to explain his “misconduct” in ignoring the subpoena and to provide “information that might shed light on his misconduct, such as he might have been confused” about the subpoena — but Bannon never presented any such explanation or information before he was found in contempt, she said.
Jul 20, 11:17 AM EDT
Jan. 6 staffer says panel ‘rejected the basis’ for Bannon’s privilege claim
Kristin Amerling, a senior staffer on the House Jan. 6 committee, returned to the stand to continue her testimony from Tuesday. She testified that Bannon was clearly informed that any claims of privilege were rejected by the committee, and that his non-compliance “would force” the committee to refer the matter to the Justice Department for prosecution.
She said the subpoena issued to Bannon indicated he was “required to produce” records encompassing 17 specific categories, including records related to the Jan. 6 rally near the White House, his communications with Trump allies and several right-wing groups, his communications with Republican lawmakers, and information related to his “War Room” podcast.
The committee was seeking to understand “the relationships or potential relationships between different individuals and organizations that played a role in Jan. 6,” Amerling said. “We wanted to ask him what he knew.”
Asked by prosecutor Amanda Vaughn if Bannon provided any records to the committee by the deadline of 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, 2021, Amerling replied, “He did not.”
“Did the committee get anything more than radio silence by 10 a.m. on Oct. 7?” Vaughn asked.
“No,” said Amerling.
Amerling said that in a correspondence she received that day at about 5 p.m. — after the deadline had passed — Bannon’s attorney at the time, Robert Costello, claimed that Trump had “announced his intention to assert” executive privilege, which Costello said at the time rendered Bannon “unable to respond” to the subpoena “until these issues are resolved.”
But the next day, Amerling recalled on the stand, she sent Costello a letter from Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson, “explaining that the committee rejected the basis that he had offered for refusing to comply.”
“Did the letter also tell the defendant he still had to comply?” Vaughn asked Amerling.
“Yes, it did.” Amerling said.
“Did the letter warn the defendant what might happen if he failed to comply with the subpoena?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, it did,” said Amerling.
The letter was “establishing a clear record of the committee’s views, making sure the defendant was aware of that,” Amerling testified.
Jul 20, 10:06 AM EDT
Judge won’t let trial become ‘political circus,’ he says
Federal prosecutors in Steve Bannon’s contempt trial raised concerns with the judge that Bannon’s team has been suggesting to the jury that this is a “politically motivated prosecution” before the second day of testimony got underway Wednesday morning.
Before the jury was brought in, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to make sure the jury “doesn’t hear one more word about this case being” politically motivated, after she said the defense’s opening statement Tuesday had “clear implications” that the defense was making that claim.
Nichols had barred such arguments from the trial.
In response, defense attorney Evan Corcoran defended his opening statement, saying it “was clearly on the line.”
Nichols then made it clear that during trial, the defense team may ask witnesses questions about whether they themselves may be biased — “but may not ask questions about whether someone else was biased in an action they took outside this courtroom.”
“I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus,” Nichols said.
Speaking to reporters after the first full day in court, Bannon blasted members of the Jan. 6 committee and House Democrats for not showing up as witnesses in his trial.
“Where is Bennie Thompson?” asked Bannon regarding the Jan. 6 committee chairman. “He’s made it a crime, not a civil charge … have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.”
“I will promise you one thing when the Republicans that are sweeping to victory on Nov. 8 — starting in January, you’re going to get a real committee,” Bannon said. “We’re going to get a real committee with a ranking member who will be a Democrat … and this will be run
appropriately and the American people will get the full story.”
The first witness for the prosecution, Kristin Amerling of the Jan. 6 committee, testified that a subpoena is not voluntary.
Amerling, the Jan. 6 panel’s deputy staff director and chief counsel, read aloud the congressional resolution creating the committee and explained that the committee’s role is to recommend “corrective measures” to prevent future attacks like the one on Jan. 6.
“Is a subpoena voluntary in any way?” asked prosecutor Amanda Vaughn.
“No,” Amerling replied.
Amerling also discussed how important it is to get information in a timely manner because the committee’s authority runs out at the end of the year. “There is an urgency to the focus of the Select Committee’s work … we have a limited amount of time in which to gather information,” she said.
Amerling noted that Bannon was subpoenaed pretty early on in the committee’s investigation.
She said the committee subpoenaed Bannon in particular because public accounts indicated that Bannon tried to persuade the public that the 2020 election was “illegitimate”; that on his podcast the day before Jan. 6 he made statements “including that all hell was going to break loose, that suggested he might have some advance knowledge of the events of Jan. 6”; that he was involved in discussions with White House officials, including Trump himself, relating to “strategies surrounding the events of Jan. 6”; and that he had been involved in discussions in the days leading up to Jan. 6 with “private parties who had gathered in the Willard hotel in Washington, D.C., reportedly to discuss strategies around efforts to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power or overturning the election results.”
“Is that something that would have been relevant to the committee’s investigation?” Vaughn asked.
“Yes, because the Select Committee was tasked with trying to understand what happened on Jan. 6, and why,” Amerling replied.
Amerling will be back on the stand Wednesday morning when the trial resumes.
Jul 19, 3:55 PM EDT
Defense tells jury ‘there was no ignoring the subpoena’
Bannon’s defense attorney Matt “Evan” Corcoran said in his opening statement that “no one ignored the subpoena” issued to Bannon, and that “there was direct engagement by Bob Costello,” Bannon’s attorney, with the House committee, specifically committee staffer Kristin Amerling.
He said Costello “immediately” communicated to the committee that there was an objection to the subpoena, “and that Steve Bannon could not appear and that he could not provide documents.”
“So there was no ignoring the subpoena,” Corcoran said. What followed was “a considerable back and forth” between Amerling and Costello — “they did what two lawyers do, they negotiated.”
Corcoran said, “the government wants you to believe … that Mr. Bannon committed a crime by not showing up to a congressional hearing room … but the evidence is going to be crystal clear no one, no one believed Mr. Bannon was going to appear on Oct. 14, 2021,” and the reasons he couldn’t appear had been articulated to the committee.
Corcoran told the jury that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable that Steve Bannon willfully defaulted when he didn’t appear for the deposition on Oct. 14, 2021 — “but you’ll find from the evidence that that date on the subpoena was the subject of ongoing discussions” and it was not “fixed.”
In addition, Corcoran told jurors, you will hear that “almost every single one” of the witnesses subpoenaed led to negotiations between committee staff and lawyers, and often the appearance would be at a later date than what was on the subpoena.
Corcoran also argued that the prosecution may have been infected by politics, telling the jury that with each document or each statement provided at trial, they should ask themselves: “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
Jul 19, 3:31 PM EDT
Prosecutors say Bannon’s failure to comply was deliberate
Continuing her opening statement, federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn told the jury that the subpoena to Bannon directed him to provide documents by the morning of Oct. 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition the morning of Oct. 14, 2021 — but instead he had an attorney, Robert Costello, send a letter to the committee informing the committee that he would not comply “in any way,” she said.
“The excuse the defendant gave for not complying” was the claim that “a privilege” meant he didn’t have to turn over certain information, Vaughn said. “[But] it’s not up to the defendant or anyone else to decide if he can ignore the [request] based on a privilege, it’s up to the committee.”
And, said Vaughn, the committee clearly told Bannon that “your privilege does not get you out of this one, you have to provide documents, and you have to come to your deposition.” And importantly, she said, the committee told Bannon that “a refusal to comply” could result in criminal prosecution.
“You will see, the defendant’s failure to comply was deliberate here,” Vaughn told the jury. “The only verdict that is supported by the evidence here: that the defendant showed his contempt for the U.S. Congress, and that he’s guilty.”
Federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn began opening statements by saying, “In September of last year, Congress needed information from the defendant, Steve Bannon. … Congress needed to know what the defendant knew about the events of Jan. 6, 2021. … Congress had gotten information that the defendant might have some details about the events leading up to that day and what occurred that day.”
So, Vaughn told the jury, Congress gave Bannon a subpoena “that mandated” he provide any information he might have.
“Congress was entitled to the information it sought, it wasn’t optional,” Vaughn said. “But as you will learn in this trial, the defendant refused to hand over the information he might have.”
Vaughn said Bannon ignored “multiple warnings” that he could face criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with the subpoena and for preventing the government from getting “important information.”
“The defendant decided he was above the law and decided he didn’t need to follow the government’s orders,” she said.
Jul 19, 2:51 PM EDT
Judge instructs jury of the burden of proof
Prior to opening statements, the judge made clear to the jury that the Justice Department has the burden to prove four distinct elements “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
(1) that Bannon was in fact subpoenaed for testimony and/or documents;
(2) that the testimony and/or documents were “pertinent” to the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation;
(3) that Bannon “failed to comply or refused to comply” with the subpoena;
(4) that the “failure or refusal to comply was willful.”
Jul 19, 2:44 PM EDT
Jury sworn in after judge denies continuance
A 14-member jury has been sworn in for the contempt trial of ex-Trump strategist Steve Bannon.
Of the 14 jurors, nine are men and five are women.
The swearing-in of the jury comes after U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a one-month delay of the trial, which attorneys for Bannon argued was necessary due to a “seismic shift in the understanding of the parties” of what the government’s evidence will be.
“We have a jury that is just about picked,” Nichols said in denying the request for a one-month continuance.
One of the jurors, a man who works for an appliance company, said Monday during jury selection that he watched the first Jan. 6 committee hearing and believes the committee is “trying to find the truth about what happened” on Jan. 6.
Another juror, a man who works as a maintenance manager for the Washington, D.C., Parks and Recreation department, said he believes what happened on Jan. 6 “doesn’t make sense.”
Another juror, a woman who works as a photographer for NASA, said “a lot” of her “photographer friends were at the Capitol” on Jan. 6, and she has watched some of the Jan. 6 hearings on the news.
(FULTON COUNTY, Ga.) — The Georgia district attorney probing former President Donald Trump and his allies’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state has notified 16 people identified as “fake electors” that they have been targeted in the ongoing criminal investigation, prosecutors revealed in court documents filed on Tuesday.
Those 16 individuals, who allegedly participated in a scheme to overturn the state’s election results, received letters “alerting that person both that [their] testimony was required by the special purpose grand jury and that [they were] target of the investigation” the filing said.
The Fulton County district attorney has been probing the effort to overturn the 2020 election results since last February, including the so-called “fake elector” plan — which has gained increased scrutiny and come under focus in other investigations around the country probing efforts to overturn the 2020 election around the country.
The target notification came after the Georgia investigation “matured and new evidence came to light,” prosecutors said, according to a separate filing by a defense attorney for 11 of the 16 individuals.
The attorney said the purported electors “did not and could not have had any involvement in or knowledge of” the alleged larger scheme by former President Trump’s allies to put for the alternate slate of electors to overturn the election.
He said in the filing that the actions of the “nominee electors” were “proper, and even necessary.”
The Jan. 6 committee has described the plan, which appeared to have multiple iterations, as being set up by the Trump campaign in multiple swing states to assemble “groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors and then transmitted these certificates to Washington, and to the Congress, to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th.”
The Department of Justice is also examining the issue of fake electors as part of its own separate investigation, sources tell ABC News. Last month, DOJ subpoenaed Georgia GOP chairman David Shafer for information related to the effort to send a fraudulent slate of electors to Congress, according to sources familiar with the matter.
A lawyer representing Shafer declined to comment at the time.
Shafer sat for a deposition with the Jan. 6 committee as well, and his transcript is among those DOJ wants the committee to turn over.
Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified to the Jan. 6 committee that Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, his associates and “several” lawmakers discussed the plan around Thanksgiving — and that she heard the White House counsel office say it was potentially illegal.
Giuliani has repeatedly downplayed his involvement with the Jan. 6 riot.
“My only involvement on January 6th was being invited to speak there,” he said in a radio appearance last month in response to Hutchinson’s testimony. “I had nothing else to do with it.”
ABC News’ Pierre Thomas, Katherine Faulders and Ben Siegel contributed to this report.
