Jan. 6 Committee Makes Case For Slapping Bannon With Contempt Charges

BRUSSEL, BELGIUM - DECEMBER 08: Former White House Chief Stratgist and Senior Counselor to President Donald Trump and CEO of the Trump Presidential Campaign, Steve Bannon speaks with journalists and delivers a speech... BRUSSEL, BELGIUM - DECEMBER 08: Former White House Chief Stratgist and Senior Counselor to President Donald Trump and CEO of the Trump Presidential Campaign, Steve Bannon speaks with journalists and delivers a speech during a conference of the Marrakesh-pact organised by Flemish far-right party Vlaams Belang at the Flemish Parliament on December 08, 2018 in Brussel, Belgium. (Photo by Sylvain Lefevre/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The House Jan. 6 select committee took its first step toward holding former White House adviser Steve Bannon in contempt late Monday after he defied the panel’s subpoena demanding testimony and certain documents last week.

The committee released a 26-page report laying out its case for criminal contempt charges against Bannon, who had argued that ex-President Donald Trump’s “executive privilege” claim prevented him from complying with the panel’s subpoena. The committee is set to vote on the Bannon “contempt report” this evening. If approved, it will be sent to the House for a full vote.

The report first explained why Bannon’s testimony is “critical” to the committee’s investigation into the Capitol attack, one that was, of course, fueled by Trump and his lackeys’ lies about the 2020 election being rigged.

The report also knocked down Bannon’s “executive privilege” argument with an obvious counterpoint: The adviser had been fired from the White House in 2017, years before the insurrection.

“The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Bannon on a wide range of subjects that it is inconceivable executive privilege would reach,” the committee argued in its report. “Mr. Bannon was a private citizen during the relevant time period and the testimony and documents the Select Committee is demanding do not concern discussion of official government matters with the President and his immediate advisors.”

The committee’s report revealed for the first time what kinds of documents and testimony the panel had sought in its Bannon subpoena, which included Bannon’s interactions with not just Trump but private, non-government citizens -– interactions that the report argues would therefore, again, not be protected as “executive privilege.”

The report also gave a rather detailed outline of how the committee, particularly committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS), communicated with Bannon and his lawyer, Robert Costello, after issuing the subpoena that ordered the ex-adviser to hand over requested documents by October 7 and to come in for a deposition on October 14.

According to the report, the committee’s staff emailed Costello on October 13 to discuss the “logistics” of Bannon’s scheduled deposition. Costello and the committee allegedly spoke on the phone about an hour after the email was sent. It was allegedly during that call that Bannon’s lawyer stated that his client would not appear before the committee due to Trump’s executive privilege claim. Then, as we know, Bannon refused to show up at the hearing the next day on October 14 at 10 a.m. ET.

However, “Mr. Bannon has relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion with the subpoena,” the report argued.

The report alleged that Bannon and Costello didn’t offer any specific objections to the documents listed in the subpoena or explain what in those requested documents or testimony would be protected by executive privilege. Trump himself hasn’t told the committee that the information the committee seeks from Bannon falls under executive privilege, the report said, only Bannon himself has made that claim.

“This third-hand, non-specific assertion of privilege, without any description of the documents or testimony over which privilege is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of executive privilege,” the report said.

Even if Bannon could have plausibly claimed executive privilege, he still needed to show up to the hearing and make the argument in the first place, the report said. Bannon was also required to provide the committee with a “privilege log” that identifies which documents fall under executive privilege and why, the report argued.

“Mr. Bannon did neither,” the report said. “He should be held in contempt.”

Read the report below:

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. I, a Twitter User who was very upset by the chants of “Lock Her Up!” and Trump’s subversion of rule of law and due process and his use of the instrumentalities of justice as a cudgel against political enemies, am very angry and upset that they are going through all this mumbo jumbo instead of just sending out someone or other to summarily arrest and jail him! I will withhold my vote unless my need for a perp walk is instantly gratified! That’ll teach Democrats!

  2. “Rule of Law?! We don’t need no steenking Rule of Law!!!”

    (h/t Gold Hat)

  3. “He should be held in contempt.”

    Bit late to the party, Select Committee? A lot of people have been holding Bannon in contempt for years now.

  4. Those dithering democrats, why the hearing started at 10:00am sharp, and they waited until 10:06 to decide to hold the non-appearing dirtyshirt in contempt.

    With that, I will note for the record that it is 10:06 a.m., and Mr. Bannon still has not appeared or communicated to the Select Committee that he will appear today as required by the subpoena.
    Accordingly, the record is now closed as of 10:06 a.m.
    [Whereupon, at 10:06 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

39 more replies


Avatar for discobot Avatar for playitagainrowlf Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for voreason Avatar for irasdad Avatar for callmeeric Avatar for sparrowhawk Avatar for drriddle Avatar for ifeveroheverawiztherewas Avatar for no_w_fan Avatar for SereneTsunami Avatar for 21zna9 Avatar for edgarant Avatar for bodie1 Avatar for lizzymom Avatar for justruss Avatar for karlwlewis Avatar for occamscoin Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for kovie Avatar for Hatmama

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: