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

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.

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, baselessly questioning Thompson's diagnosis after he 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

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.

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.