Defense attorney Evan Corcoran continued his closing argument by asking the jury to assess each witness's "credibility."

"You need to consider whether a witness has an interest in the outcome of the case, and need to consider whether the witness has a friendship ... with anyone associated with the case," he said.

"The entire foundation of the government's case rests on Ms. Amerling," the Jan. 6 committee staffer, Corcoran said, adding that "of course" she has an interest in the outcome of this case.

He said Amerling "singled out" Bannon and "rushed to judgment," claiming that she filled out the subpoena's "proof of service" form "before it was served."

"Why fill out the proof of service before it was accomplished? That's a reason to doubt the government's case," he said.

He also suggested that Amerling has a political bias, saying that Amerling has been a "staff member aligned with one political party" and donated to Democratic causes.

"Ms. Amerling worked for 20 years for one political party," he said.

Referencing the book club that Amerling and prosecutor Molly Gaston both belong to, Corcoran said that Amerling has a "relationship with the prosecutor," which "raises questions."

"They socialized out of work," Corcoran said, before adding, "Make no mistake, I'm not against book clubs," which drew laughs from those watching in the courtroom.

Corcoran also told the jury that Bannon didn't comply with the subpoena because he believed negotiations with the jury were ongoing. Of the letters between the Jan. 6 committee and Bannon's attorney, Robert Costello, in which the committee repeatedly told Costello that Bannon must comply, Corcoran said, "The government wants you to believe that that's a paper trail to a crime. ... It's two lawyers trying to communicate and negotiate over a legal issue."

As for the deadlines written on the subpoenas, "those dates were placeholders," he said.

Corcoran also said that Bannon's compliance was impacted by concerns over executive privilege.

"He didn't intentionally refuse to comply with the subpoena," Corcoran said. "He clearly, through his attorney, said, 'Let's remove the obstacle to my coming to testify. Let's get rid of the obstacle of executive privilege, and I'll testify, as I've done on several occasions before Congress.'"

Corcoran said that Bannon asked the committee to bring the executive privilege question before a court, and told the committee, "I will abide by the judge's rules."

"This case is not, as the prosecution said, about the need for people to play by the rules," Corcoran said in wrapping up. "This is about Ms. Amerling saying they need to play by her rules."

"Steve Bannon is innocent," Corcoran concluded.

Defense attorney Evan Corcoran began his closing argument by saying, "None of us will soon forget Jan. 6, 2021. It's part of our collective memory."

"But there isn't evidence in this case that Steve Bannon was involved at all," he said. "Steve Bannon is innocent of the crimes with which he's charged."

Telling the jury that there are many "things" that should "give you pause," Corcoran said there is "reason to doubt the government's case."

He made several claims suggesting that the subpoena may not be valid for procedural reasons.

Corcoran said that Jan. 6 committee staffer Kristin Amerling testified that to her knowledge, Bannon, in conjunction with his subpoena, wasn't provided a certain section of the House resolution laying out congressional rules, as required by congressional regulations. "That's a reason for you to doubt the prosecution's case. You must give Steve Bannon the benefit of the doubt," Corcoran said.

The judge, however, interrupted Corcoran and told him to tie his remark to "an issue that's actually been submitted" during trial -- and when the prosecution raised an objection to Corcoran's remarks, he moved on.

Corcoran then noted that Amerling had testified that a committee subpoena is only valid if it's signed by the committee's chairman. He then showed the jury Jan. 6 committee chairman Bennie Thompson's signature on letters to then-Bannon attorney Robert Costello, comparing it to Thompson's signature on the subpoena.

"That is the signature on the subpoena, and you could ask yourself if one of those things is different than the other. Because that could be a doubt as to the government's case, a reasonable doubt as to [whether] chairman Thompson signed the subpoena," Corcoran said.

At that point, the judge called for a private sidebar again, and after that Corcoran moved on.

During her closing argument, prosecutor Molly Gaston reminded the jury that the judge had told them that to convict Bannon, they must find that he not only failed to comply with the subpoena, but that he did so "willfully" -- not to mean that he did it for an "evil or bad purpose," but that the failure was "deliberate and intentional" and not the result of "inadvertence, accident or mistake."

Gaston insisted that Bannon's decision was "deliberate" and "willful" and that, "the reason for that choice does not matter."

"It does not matter if he refused to comply because his lawyers advised him so," or because he believed a privilege was involved, she said. "As long as the defendant knew that he had been commanded by the subpoena to produce documents and give testimony," then "his belief that he had a good excuse not to comply does not matter. That is not a defense for contempt."

She said this may be "strict," but "in order for the government to function, citizens need to follow the rules. … It is how we all live together in society."

"The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance with the law," Gaston said.

Regarding claims by the defense that Bannon thought the dates "in black and white on the face of that document were not hard deadlines," Gaston said: "Please don't fall for that."

"We are here because the defendant had contempt for Congress," she said. "This is a situation in which the name of the crime tells you everything you need to know: contempt."

Referring to Bannon's defense attorney, Gaston said that "Mr. Corcoran has tried to tell you this case is about politics, but the only person making this case about politics is the defendant, and he is doing it to distract and confuse you. Don't let him."

"There is nothing political about enforcing the law against someone who, like the defendant, flouts it," she said.

"The defendant chose defiance," Gaston said. "Find him guilty."

Prosecutor Molly Gaston began closing arguments by telling the jury, "This case is not complicated, but it is important."

"This is simply a case about a man -- that man, Steve Bannon -- who didn't show up," she said. "Why didn't he show up? He didn't show up because he did not want to, because he did not want to provide the Jan. 6 committee with documents, he did not want to answers its questions, and when it really comes down to it, he did not want to recognize Congress' authority or play by the government's rules."

"So why is this case important?" Gaston said. "It is important because our government only works if people show up. It only works if people play by the rules. And it only works if people are held accountable when they do not. And in this case, when the defendant deliberately chose to defy a congressional subpoena, that was a crime."

Calling Jan. 6 "a dark day in our nation's history" that included "violence against law enforcement" and efforts to disrupt the "peaceful transfer of power," Gaston said Congress created the Jan. 6 committee to "make sense of it" and to "make sure that it never happens again."

Regarding the subpoena that the committee sent Bannon, she said, "This document is not hard to understand. It tells the defendant what he is required to do, and when he is required to do it."

"The defendant did not produce a single document," Gaston said. "Was that a mistake? No, that was intentional."

She recited the back-and-forth correspondence between Bannon's then-lawyer, Robert Costello, and the committee, in which Bannon claimed that executive privilege "completely exempted him" and the committee repeatedly said that it "rejected" that claim and warned Bannon that he could face prosecution for contempt of Congress.

She noted that the privilege that Bannon claimed "could not possibly cover everything" that the committee was asking for, and that Bannon "made clear" in a social media post that "he was defying the committee to -- quote -- 'stand with Trump.'"

"This is the defendant celebrating his defiance," Gaston said. "And this shows the defendant knew that the subpoena required him to produce documents."

"This was not a mistake," Gaston said, telling the jury "he ignored" the subpoena.