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.

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.