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

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:

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriter:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: