We just published my column on the home page, explaining that just as jury selection was concluding in former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s contempt-of-Congress trial and opening statements were set to begin, defense lawyers yet again sought a postponement. They contended that pretrial rulings were unclear regarding what they were permitted to argue in Bannon’s behalf.
Judge Carl Nichols denied the defense’s request for a 30-day continuance but said he might be open to a brief adjournment, perhaps until tomorrow morning, if Bannon’s lawyers could convince him this afternoon that it was necessary. Turns out they couldn’t.
The trial is thus under way in earnest, with opening statements presented to a jury of 14 — there are two alternates among the nine men and five women.
The Washington Post reports that federal prosecutor Amanda Vaughn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia delivered the government’s opening. Not surprisingly, she contended that Bannon “decided he was above the law” in deliberately flouting the House January 6 committee’s subpoenas for testimony and the production of documents. She portrayed the case as very simple: Bannon knew he had until October 18 to comply with the subpoenas or be criminally liable; he failed to comply as the deadline came and went.
As expected based on the lawyers’ arguments before the court this morning, Bannon’s lawyers then opened by arguing that Bannon believed his lawyers were still negotiating with the House committee and did not intend to ignore the subpoenas. One of his attorneys, M. Evan Corcoran, told the jury, “It’s called a negotiation; it’s called accommodation.” Appearing to make a pitch for nullification, Corcoran portrayed the case as a politically motivated pursuit of Bannon along partisan lines in Congress.
I would not expect the trial to take more than a couple of days. Obviously, if Bannon testifies, that will extend things, but not much.