- Lawmaker Calls SEC Enforcement Actions Against Crypto Exchanges ‘Complete Contempt for Congress’ – Regulation Bitcoin News Bitcoin News
- Gensler: Crypto firms know exactly how to register, they just don’t want to Blockworks
- Gary Gensler: Crypto market is like 1920s stock market, full of ‘fraudsters’ Cointelegraph
- US Senator Cynthia Lummis Blasts SEC Actions Against Coinbase, Explains Crypto Industry Is Being Pushed Offshore – Exchanges Bitcoin News Bitcoin News
- Former SEC Official to Crypto Owners: ‘Get Out Now’ U.Today
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: contempt
Two assistant prosecutors involved in contempt fights depart Kim Gardner’s office – St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- Two assistant prosecutors involved in contempt fights depart Kim Gardner’s office St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- St. Louis Circuit Attorney asks for new judge in case to remove her from office – St. Louis Business Journal The Business Journals
- Another prosecutor resigns from Kim Gardner’s office KTVI Fox 2 St. Louis
- Assistant prosecutor at center of Gardner contempt hearing resigns KMOV4
- Chris Desilets, assistant St. Louis circuit attorney at center of latest contempt hearing, resigns – St. Louis Business Journal The Business Journals
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Soros-backed prosecutor Kim Gardner says ‘I ain’t leaving, I ain’t resigning’ as contempt case moves forward – New York Post
- Soros-backed prosecutor Kim Gardner says ‘I ain’t leaving, I ain’t resigning’ as contempt case moves forward New York Post
- Judge shreds Soros-backed prosecutor, moves to hold her in criminal contempt: ‘Rudderless ship of chaos‘ Fox News
- St. Louis’ Kimberly M. Gardner asks for new judge in case aimed at removing her from office St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- Byers’ Beat: Number of prosecutors left in St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office a moving target KSDK.com
- News 4 Investigates: Judge questions caseloads of prosecutors KMOV4
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Justice Dept. asks judge to hold Trump team in contempt over Mar-a-Lago case
In recent days, Justice Department lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell to hold Trump’s office in contempt, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sealed court proceedings. But the judge has not yet held a hearing or ruled on the request, they said.
The request came after months of mounting frustration from the Justice Department with Trump’s team — frustration that spiked in June after the former president’s lawyers provided assurances that a diligent search had been conducted for classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club and residence. But the FBI amassed evidence suggesting — and later confirmed through a court-authorized search — that many more remained.
One of the key areas of disagreement centers on the Trump legal team’s repeated refusal to designate a custodian of records to sign a document attesting that all classified materials have been returned to the federal government, according to two of these people. The Justice Department has repeatedly sought an unequivocal sworn written assurance from Trump’s team that all such documents have been returned, and Trump’s team has been unwilling to designate a custodian of records to sign such a statement while also giving assurances that they have handed documents back.
The precise wording of the filing could not be determined because it remains under seal. Trump is under investigation for three potential crimes: mishandling classified documents, obstruction and destruction of government records.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said the former president’s lawyers “continue to be cooperative and transparent.” He added: “This is a political witch hunt unlike anything like this country has ever seen.”
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
Trump’s team has searched a number of his other properties in recent weeks, in response to the Justice Department concerns and instructions from the judge, and turned over two items with classification markings to the government. Trump’s advisers told the FBI the items were found in a storage facility used by the former president in West Palm Beach, Fla. Other Trump properties searched in recent weeks include his Bedminster golf course in New Jersey and his home and office at Trump Tower in Manhattan. People familiar with those searches by a private firm say no classified documents were found at those locations.
Trump’s side has taken the position that such a request is unreasonable — that no lawyer could sign such a blanket certification in good faith or advise any client to do so, as opposed to attesting that a search of a given location has been completed in good faith. Some of Trump’s lawyers are also wary of making any claim under oath based on Trump’s word alone, two people familiar with the matter said.
The government’s request for a finding of contempt underscores the fundamental distrust that has existed since the spring between the government trying to retrieve sensitive documents and a former president whose responses have proved untrustworthy. That distrust has led to a legal impasse in sealed papers over what constitutes a complete search for classified papers.
When the government first issued a subpoena in May for any documents with classified markings, the official recipient of that subpoena was the office of the former president’s custodian of records — a role Trump’s team ultimately told the government was held by attorney Christina Bobb.
In June, Bobb signed an attestation that a diligent search had been conducted for any such material, but the FBI collected convincing evidence that was not the case. The government received a court-authorized search warrant in August, which turned up 103 more classified documents at Mar-a-Lago that had not been turned over in response to the subpoena.
But after months of back-and-forth, the core question has still not been answered to the Justice Department’s satisfaction: Are there any more classified items still in the former president’s possession? Prosecutors, having been burned before by empty promises, now want unqualified vows from someone in the official role of the custodian of records that there are no more classified skeletons in any of Trump’s closets.
Prosecutors have asked the judge to find Trump’s side in contempt as long as none of his advisers are willing to assume the role of custodian of records responsible for a complete answer to the question, these people said. In recent months, Bobb has publicly said she is not doing legal work related to the documents case but only advising Trump’s PAC on election issues.
If the judge were to agree, the most likely scenario would be a daily fine until the demands of the contempt motion are met. How large of a fine, or who would be forced to pay it, would be up to the judge.
It is not uncommon for large organizations to designate a records custodian who can take formal legal responsibility for the company or entity’s files. In Trump’s case, the subpoena sent in May was formally directed to his office’s custodian of records. No individual was named in the request.
Prosecutors have said in court filings that after Trump’s lawyers received the May subpoena, they asked for additional time to comply with it before agreeing to meet on June 3 to turn over records. The night before the scheduled meeting, Bobb — a lawyer and former One America News host — was called by Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn and asked to join lawyer Evan Corcoran at the meeting with Justice Department lawyers, according to a person familiar with the account she later gave to the FBI. Bobb had not previously met Corcoran.
At the June 3 meeting, Bobb gave the Justice Department a letter that began by saying she had been designated to serve as the office’s custodian of records, for purposes of the subpoena, according to people familiar with the conversation. The certification, with a redacted name, has been included in court filings. The letter said Bobb had been told a “diligent search” had been conducted of boxes “moved from the White House to Florida,” and that all documents responsive to the subpoena were being turned over.
The person close to Bobb has said she told the FBI she was skeptical of the letter and insisted on adding a disclaimer saying it was based on information provided to her by others.
Last month, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to take over the investigation into the classified documents, along with an investigation into Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, a number of Trump advisers have appeared in front of a grand jury hearing evidence in the classified documents case.
Stephen Ryan, a white-collar criminal defense attorney, said it is usually not difficult to figure out who should serve as the custodian of records for a company. “In the normal course of business, if you’re a real business, you have records and you have custodians of those records that you can call on,” he said. “It’s the person who holds custody of the records as part of their day-to-day activities.”
In this case, however, there is no representative of Trump who has actually maintained control of the records. “The department is in effect asking for something that doesn’t exist,” he said. “This is an extraordinary problem that is factually relatively unique.”
At this point, he said, “no one wants to put their head in the custodian noose.”
True the Vote leaders sent to jail after contempt ruling by federal judge
The order marked the latest twist in a defamation case brought last month by Konnech, an election software company that True the Vote claimed allowed the Chinese government to have access to a server in China that held the personal information of nearly 2 million U.S. election workers. Konnech has vigorously disputed the claim.
The judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt, had ordered Engelbrecht and Phillips to reveal the name of a person who allegedly helped True the Vote access Konnech’s computer systems.
When they declined to meet the court’s 9 a.m. deadline, the judge found them in contempt. The pair have claimed, without evidence, that the person who helped them was a confidential FBI informant.
In a statement, Engelbrecht said that “we will be held in jail until we agree to give up the name of a person we believe was not covered under the terms of the judge’s” order.
Michael J. Wynne, a lawyer for Engelbrecht and Phillips, said that “we’re looking at alternate remedies” and declined further comment. Katie Breen, a spokesperson for True the Vote, released a statement that said the organization was calling for the “immediate release” of its leaders and that its attorneys were appealing the ruling.
Dean Pamphilis, a lawyer for Konnech said: “Judge Hoyt’s order holding Ms. Engelbrecht and Mr. Phillips in contempt speaks for itself.”
Konnech chief executive Eugene Yu was arrested in early October on charges that appeared to mirror some of the claims of True the Vote. The Los Angeles districts attorney’s office later downgraded its accusations, saying Konnech had exposed the personal information of “tens of thousands of County workers to possible compromise.”
Yu’s attorney has requested that the charges be dismissed, arguing that they are without merit.
Phillips and Engelbrecht are prominent and long-standing members of the election denier movement.
Just days after the 2016 presidential election, Phillips claimed without evidence that he had “verified” that more than 3 million votes had been cast by noncitizens — just enough to wipe out Hillary Clinton’s margin in the popular vote tally. Donald Trump, then president-elect, avidly repeated the claim.
Phillips later announced that a fundraising effort was underway to verify his claim. But in a 2017 video posted on YouTube, he said not enough donations were received to finish the job.
True the Vote later received millions in donations to investigate the 2020 election. One donor, Fred Eschelman, gave the group $2.5 million but later sued to get his money back, claiming True the Vote directed much of his money to people or businesses connected to Engelbrecht. A lawyer for the organization denied Eschelman’s claim.
Engelbrecht and Phillips most recently were executive producers of “2,000 Mules,” a widely discredited film purporting to show countless people casting illegal votes by mail based on surveillance video and geotracking data. Though spokespeople for the movie said it made millions of dollars in revenue, no fraud was ever found.
Trump ex-adviser Bannon sentenced to four months for contempt of Congress
WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) – Steve Bannon, a one-time adviser to former President Donald Trump, was sentenced by a judge on Friday to four months in prison for refusing to cooperate with lawmakers investigating last year’s U.S. Capitol attack.
Bannon was found guilty in July on two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to provide documents or testimony to the House of Representatives committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack. Prosecutors had sought a six-month sentence, while Bannon’s attorneys had asked for probation.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols also ordered Bannon, a key adviser to the Republican Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, to pay a fine of $6,500. The judge allowed Bannon to defer serving his sentence while he appeals his conviction.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Prosecutor J.P. Cooney said at Friday’s hearing that Bannon chose to “thumb his nose at Congress.” He “is not above the law, and that’s what makes this case important,” Cooney said.
Bannon, 68, served as Trump’s chief White House strategist during 2017 before a falling out between them that was later patched up.
A firebrand, Brannon helped articulate the “America First” right-wing populism and stout opposition to immigration that helped define Trump’s presidency. Bannon has played an instrumental role in right-wing media and has promoted right-wing causes and candidates in the United States and abroad.
A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and attacked police with batons, sledgehammers, flag poles, Taser devices, chemical irritants, metal pipes, rocks, metal guard rails and other weapons in a failed effort to block congressional certification of his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
Bannon declined to address the judge prior to sentencing on Friday.
Outside the courthouse, he delivered fiery remarks as protesters at times tried to drown his voice out with shouts of “Traitor!”
“Today was my judgment day by the judge,” Bannon told reporters. But…on November 8, they are going to have judgment on the illegitimate Biden regime, and quite frankly, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and the entire committee.”
Bannon has two weeks to file his appeal, which his lawyers said they intend to do. If he fails to file it on time, he is required to turn himself in by Nov. 15.
Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist under former President Donald Trump, arrives at U.S. District Court on the day of his sentencing on contempt of Congress charges after refusing a subpoena from the January 6th committee, in Washington, U.S. October 21, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
According to the Jan. 6 committee, Bannon spoke with Trump at least twice on the day before the attack, attended a planning meeting at a Washington hotel and said on his right-wing podcast that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
In his trial, prosecutors called only two witnesses while Bannon’s defense team called none. Bannon opted not to testify. Bannon’s lawyers have said they will appeal his conviction.
Bannon’s defense was hamstrung by rulings by Nichols that barred him from asserting that he relied on executive privilege claims and arguing that he relied on advice from his attorney.
The committee’s leaders have called Bannon’s conviction a victory for the rule of law. Bannon had sought to portray the criminal charges as politically motivated, lashing out at Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland, while saying, “They took on the wrong guy his time.”
The Democratic-led committee has sought testimony from dozens of people in Trump’s orbit. In addition to Bannon, prosecutors have charged former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro with contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the same committee, with a Nov. 17 trial date set. Navarro has pleaded not guilty.
During Friday’s hearing, Bannon’s attorney David Schoen said Bannon relied on the advice of his lawyers not to comply with a congressional subpoena after Trump invoked executive privilege, a legal doctrine that shields some White House communications from disclosure.
“A more egregious contempt of Congress would have been to say ‘Screw you Congress, take your subpoena and shove it!'” Schoen said.
Nichols, in rendering his decision, said he agreed that Bannon should get some credit for relying on legal advice, even if it was “misguided.”
At the same time, Nichols said that Bannon “had not produced a single document” or any testimony to Congress.
“The January 6 Committee has every reason to investigate what happened that day,” Nichols said, adding that “flaunting congressional subpoenas betrays a lack of respect” for Congress.
Friday’s sentencing does not end Bannon’s legal troubles. He was indicted in New York state in September on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, with prosecutors accusing him of deceiving donors giving money to help build Trump’s promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bannon, who pleaded not guilty, could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted on those charges.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Will Dunham and Alistair Bell
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Bannon Issues Warning to Jan. 6 Committee Hours After Contempt Conviction
- Steve Bannon was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress on Friday.
- He accused the Jan. 6 committee of broadcasting lies and said Republicans needed their own committee.
- “I would tell the Jan. 6 staff right now: preserve your documents because there’s going to be a real committee,” he said.
Steve Bannon lashed out at the House January 6 committee hours after being found guilty of contempt of Congress on Friday.
Speaking to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Bannon warned committee staffers that Republicans would have their own committee if they returned to power.
“We have to have a real January 6 committee, including to get to the staffers now and see about the lies and misrepresentations they put on the national television to defame people,” Bannon said.
“I would tell the Jan. 6 staff right now: preserve your documents because there’s going to be a real committee, and this is going to be backed by Republican grassroots voters to say we want to get to the bottom of this for the good of the nation.”
The Trump ally said that Republicans need to take offensive action if they take back the House in the midterm elections.
“We have to really govern, and I mean govern on offense. Every committee in the House needs to be an oversight committee. We have to go after the Biden administration, which is illegitimate,” Bannon said.
Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images
He also praised right-wing activist Darren Beattie, who has promoted the baseless conspiracy theory that the FBI was involved in the attack on the Capitol.
Bannon said a Republican January 6 committee would look at “intelligence failures, FBI involvement, DHS involvement, the intelligence services, what happened to the Pentagon and the National Guard.”
Trump allies have baselessly claimed that the former president’s requests for National Guard troops ahead of the Capitol attack were rejected by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which has been widely debunked.
Bannon, Trump’s former chief White House strategist, was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress on Friday for defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee and failing to provide requested documents.
During his trial, he declined to testify in his own defense or call any witnesses to the stand. He, at one point, accused the House committee members of lacking the “guts” to testify against him.
Each count of contempt of Congress carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail.
Speaking on Fox News, Bannon said that he had a “long appeals process ahead of him” but said he was not worried if he had to go to jail.
On Friday, January 6 committee members hailed the ruling as a “victory for the rule of law.”
Trump ex-adviser Bannon convicted of contempt of U.S. Congress
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) – Steve Bannon, a key associate of former President Donald Trump and an influential figure on the American right, was convicted on Friday of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee probing last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol, a verdict the panel called a “victory for the rule of law.”
A jury found Bannon, 68, guilty of two misdemeanor counts for refusing to provide testimony or documents to the House of Representatives select committee as it scrutinizes the Jan. 6, 2021, rampage by Trump supporters who tried to upend the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Each count is punishable by 30 days to one year behind bars and a fine of $100 to $100,000. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols set an Oct. 21 sentencing date.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
The verdict by the jury of eight men and four women, after less than three hours of deliberations, marked the first successful prosecution for contempt of Congress since 1974, when a judge found G. Gordon Liddy, a conspirator in the Watergate scandal that prompted President Richard Nixon’s resignation, guilty.
Bannon was a key adviser to the Republican Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, then served as his chief White House strategist during 2017 before a falling out between them that was later patched up. Bannon also has played an instrumental role in right-wing media.
“We lost a battle here today. We’re at war,” Bannon told reporters after the verdict.
Bannon castigated the “members of that show-trial committee” who he said “didn’t have the guts to come down here and testify in open court.” Bannon opted not to testify in his own defense.
“The conviction of Steve Bannon is a victory for the rule of law,” Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, a Republican, said in a statement.
“Just as there must be accountability for all those responsible for the events of January 6th, anyone who obstructs our investigation into these matters should face consequences. No one is above the law,” they added.
Bannon’s defense team in closing arguments on Friday suggested that Bannon was a political target and painted the main prosecution witness as a politically motivated Democrat with ties to one of the prosecutors, including belonging to the same book club. The prosecution said Bannon showed disdain for the authority of Congress and needed to be held accountable for unlawful defiance.
Prosecutor Molly Gaston told jurors the attack represented a “dark day” for America, adding: “There is nothing political about finding out why Jan. 6 happened and making sure it never happens again.”
‘BULLET-PROOF APPEAL’
After the verdict, David Schoen, one of Bannon’s attorneys, promised his client will have “a bullet-proof appeal.”
The judge limited the scope of the case Bannon’s team could present. Bannon was barred from arguing that he believed his communications with Trump were subject to a legal doctrine called executive privilege that can keep certain presidential communications confidential and was prohibited from arguing he relied upon an attorney’s legal advice in refusing to comply.
In two days of testimony, prosecutors questioned only two witnesses and the defense called none.
The conviction may strengthen the committee’s position as it seeks testimony and documents from others in Trump’s orbit. Trump last year asked his associates not to cooperate, accusing the committee of trying to hurt him politically. Several rebuffed the panel.
Another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, was charged with contempt of Congress in June for refusing a committee deposition. Navarro’s trial is scheduled for November. The Justice Department opted not to charge Trump associates Mark Meadows and Daniel Scavino for defying the committee despite a House vote recommending it. read more
The main prosecution witness was Kristin Amerling, a top committee staffer who testified that Bannon spurned deadlines to respond to last September’s subpoena, sought no extensions and offered an invalid rationale for his defiance: Trump’s claim of executive privilege.
The Justice Department charged Bannon last November after the Democratic-led House voted the prior month to hold him in contempt. Bannon separately was charged in 2020 with defrauding donors to a private fund-raising effort to boost Trump’s project to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump pardoned Bannon before that case went to trial. read more
A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and attacked police with batons, sledgehammers, flag poles, Taser devices, chemical irritants, metal pipes, rocks, metal guard rails and other weapons in a failed effort to block congressional certification of his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
According to the committee, Bannon spoke with Trump at least twice on the day before the attack, attended a planning meeting at a Washington hotel and said on his right-wing podcast “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
Bannon’s defense argued he believed the subpoena deadlines were flexible and subject to negotiation. In an 11th-hour reversal with the trial looming, Bannon this month announced a willingness to testify in a public committee hearing, an offer prosecutors said did not change the fact he had already broken the law.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Takeaways from Day 2 of the Steve Bannon contempt of Congress trial
The simple case that prosecutors wish to put on was evident in an opening statement and in the questioning of their first witness, a House select committee staffer, who kept her testimony at a very basic level.
Bannon’s team tried to muddy those waters with insinuations of partisanship — both in an opening statement and in fiery remarks Bannon delivered outside the courtroom after the proceedings wrapped.
In her opening statement, prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said Bannon was defying a government order that citizens are obligated to follow, telling the jury it should find that “the defendant showed his contempt for the US Congress, US government, and that he’s guilty.” Bannon, by not complying with the subpoena, “prevented the government from getting the important information it needed from him.”
Speaking for about 20 minutes, Vaughn laid out why the committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection was entitled to information from Bannon, going over how congressional committees do the research that shapes laws Congress enacts and why this committee was specifically interested in getting information from Bannon.
“Because it was a subpoena, Congress was entitled to the information it sought. It wasn’t optional. It wasn’t a request. It wasn’t an invitation. It was mandatory,” she said, as she stressed that the committee rejected the reasons Bannon put forward for not cooperating.
The case that prosecutors signaled they will put on is, in some ways, a product of several pre-trial rulings in their favor from US District Judge Carl Nichols. He has kept out of the trial much of the evidence Bannon sought to present — including most arguments about executive privilege. The Justice Department instead just has to prove that Bannon made a deliberate and intentional decision not to show up for the requested testimony or produce the demanded documents by set deadlines.
She framed the case as one “about the defendant thumbing his nose at the orderly process of our government.”
“This is not a case of a mistake,” she told the jury. “The defendant didn’t get the date wrong. He didn’t get confused on where to go. He didn’t get stuck on a broken-down metro car. He just refused to follow the rules.”
Bannon’s team plays politics
A long morning of bitter legal argument from Bannon’s team led to a relatively short, 15-minute opening statement from his defense attorney Evan Corcoran — and a long public diatribe from Bannon later.
Corcoran’s opening statement was the first time the public and the court heard Bannon’s team’s full framing of their defense, after days of their protests. He explained to jurors they would hear about some negotiating around Bannon’s subpoena, then hinted that partisanship was afoot when the House select committee subpoenaed his client.
“The evidence was crystal clear: No one, no one believed Steve Bannon was going to appear on October 14, 2021,” Corcoran argued.
He also asked the jury to wonder, as they see evidence such as Bannon’s subpoena and contempt referral, “Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?”
After the proceedings, Bannon’s tone was hostile as he spoke from the sidewalk outside the courthouse. He railed at House select committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, attacking the committee’s work and how prosecutors’ case was being presented.
“I challenge Bennie Thompson today to have the courage to come to this courthouse. If he’s gonna charge somebody with a crime, he’s got to be man enough to show up here,” Bannon said.
Bannon’s team previously tried to subpoena several House members to testify, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, removing one strategy his team had hoped to use. Still, there is a small possibility that the judge may revisit Bannon’s wish to call Thompson to testify, depending on how the staffer’s testimony and the rest of the prosecutors’ case goes.
Straightforward testimony from committee staffer
With the Justice Department’s first witness on the stand to close the afternoon, testimony so far has been as straightforward as prosecutors can make it.
Did Bannon produce records by his subpoena deadline of October 7?
“He did not,” Kristin Amerling, a deputy staff director on the committee, said.
Did Bannon appear for testimony as his subpoena required on October 14?
“He did not,” Amerling said, again, in the witness box.
The testimony highlighted how simple the Justice Department has sought to make the case for jurors — including by putting Congress’ work in the most basic terms.
Amerling also laid out the parameters of the House committee and how it functions. She spoke about its fact-finding work needing to be done with urgency, because “the threat to our democratic institutions continues.” And she described how the committee sought out Bannon because of his contacts with Trump and others in Trump’s circles, including at the Willard Hotel before the January 6 riot — all details included in the committee’s public letter to Bannon accompanying the subpoena.
Amerling returns for more testimony on Wednesday morning.
Verdict could come before Thursday’s prime-time hearing
Much of the drama of the Bannon trial has been about its timing.
Will this trial be short and straightforward (like prosecutors foresee) or long and more complicated (like Bannon hopes)? Would it be delayed for a month or longer, or could it even head to deliberations before the select committee prime-time hearing Thursday night?
Bannon has made several unsuccessful attempts to postpone this week’s trial, with his attorney on Tuesday morning seeking a month-long delay after a heated legal argument over what evidence can be presented in the case.
Nor did a Bannon team proposal to push the trial back just a few days get any real traction. At one point, Nichols suggested that they might need to wait until Wednesday to start the trial in earnest as the parties struggled to hash out a plan for dealing with certain evidence. But ultimately, that debate cost the proceedings only a few hours, and opening statements were able to kick off by mid-afternoon.
Only a handful of witnesses have been identified in both sides’ plans for the trial, meaning that the proceedings are still on track to take just a few days. The question now is whether Bannon’s charges will be deliberated by the jury before Thursday’s January 6 committee hearing.
Trump cleared of contempt in New York attorney general’s fraud investigation
A New York judge ruled Wednesday that Donald Trump is no longer in contempt for failing to turn over documents demanded in a subpoena by the state’s attorney general.
The former president’s April 25 contempt finding came after he contested a December subpoena seeking records related to his personal finances and the financing of several properties. Trump claimed he had no material that was responsive to the subpoena, leading to demands by the judge and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James that his attorneys provide detailed explanations of how they conducted their search.
“Although we are pleased that the court has lifted the contempt finding, we maintain that it was wholly unwarranted and improper in the first place,” Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, said in a text message. “We will push ahead with our appeal to secure justice for our client.”
Trump was fined $10,000 per day through May 6, when his attorneys first filed explanations of their attempts to search for subpoenaed documents. In the weeks since, the judge and the attorney general have demanded affidavits from two dozen Trump Organization employees and attorneys in an effort to learn how Donald Trump’s eponymous company has for a decade apparently kept nearly no records on the personal finances of its namesake.
Nearly all the employees who filed affidavits described a company that has few concrete policies related to the destruction and retention of documents related to Trump’s personal finances, leaving such decisions to individuals, or in certain cases, their department heads.
Those statements largely mirrored what Trump said in his own affidavit, that “it has been my customary practice to delegate document handling and retention responsibilities to my executive assistants.”
Executive assistants who filed affidavits said they didn’t follow any set policies. One longtime former assistant, Rhona Graff, said in a May 31 deposition that she often left such decisions up to other people. In affidavits filed June 17, the heads of several departments said that while they had internal document retention policies, they did not have any policies specific to documents related to Trump himself.
Habba noted in a June 8 letter to the court that “a vast number” of documents showing Trump’s “handwritten notes” had been turned over by the Trump Organization. Habba’s letter was accompanied by eight exhibits that include several photos of the golf legend Gary Player, on which Trump had written “Great,” as well as several legal and design documents in which he wrote “OK.” There was also a note from his daughter on a planning document related to a Trump property in Doral, Florida.
In a filing June 21, an attorney for James’ office said it supported lifting the contempt finding, not because it was happy with the explanations it received, but “because it is not apparent what else, if anything, [Trump] and his counsel can be ordered to do.”
The attorney, Andrew Amer, indicated that Trump will be asked about company records during a court-ordered sworn deposition scheduled for mid-July. Trump and two of his children, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, recently lost two appeals seeking to block the depositions.
“We have every expectation that [Trump] will be examined under oath next month and will advise the Court promptly if new information regarding Respondent’s documents is gleaned from that testimony,” Amer wrote, adding that he is still concerned about “the apparent absence in the productions of documents one would expect to see from Mr. Trump relating to his Statements of Financial Condition.”
James’ office has since 2019 been conducting a wide-ranging civil fraud investigation into Trump and his company, and has said its investigation has collected evidence “showing that Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization used fraudulent and misleading financial statements to obtain economic benefit.”
Amer and his colleagues have said in multiple recent hearings that the investigation is nearing its conclusion.