Bannon contempt trial: After guilty verdict, Bannon rips Jan. 6 committee members

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."

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.

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.

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.