Tag Archives: contempt

January 6 panel unveils text messages to Meadows from Don Jr. and Fox hosts as contempt charge advances

The graphic messages illustrated the dismay of the former President’s inner circle as the Capitol riot worsened, and they served as evidence of Trump’s “supreme dereliction of duty,” the committee’s vice chairwoman, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, said Monday.

Cheney made the motion for the committee to vote for the contempt resolution, which passed unanimously in the 9-member committee. The full House is expected to vote on the resolution on Tuesday.

Those texts, as several members of the committee noted, were already turned over to the panel and are not covered by any claim of privilege — which Meadows has continued to assert since reversing his decision to cooperate with the investigation.

Meadows did not address the text messages while discussing the committee’s vote with Fox News’ Sean Hannity later Monday.

“Obviously, it’s disappointing, but not surprising,” Meadows said.

Committee releases Meadows’ texts with lawmakers and Trump’s son

At Monday night’s meeting, the committee publicly released graphics that include texts sent to Meadows during the days around the insurrection.

The committee pointed to texts exchanged between Meadows and lawmakers, Fox News personalities and Trump’s eldest son about the urgency for the former president to act to stop the siege.

Texts from unnamed lawmakers sent to Meadows said that former Vice President Mike Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”

Cheney said other texts were sent in real time about the events as they unfolded.

“These text messages leave no doubt. The White House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol,” Cheney said. “One text Mr. Meadows received said quote ‘We are under siege here at the Capitol.'”

“In a third, ‘Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol, breaking windows on doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?’ A fourth, ‘There’s an armed standoff at the House chamber door.’ And another from someone inside the Capitol: ‘We are all helpless.'”

Cheney also read texts from news personalities from Fox News and Trump’s own children.

“As the violence continued, one of the President’s sons texts Mr. Meadows, ‘He’s got to condemn this ASAP. The capitol police tweet is not enough,’ Donald Trump Jr. texted. Meadows responded, ‘I am pushing it hard. I agree.'”

Cheney continued: “Donald Trump Jr. texted again and again, urging action by the President. Quote, ‘We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far. And gotten out of hand,’ end quote. But hours passed without necessary action by the President,” Cheney said.

When the events of the certification of the Electoral College eventually happened in the early hours of January 7, Meadows received a text calling January 6 a “terrible day.”

“Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objections to the 6 states,” the text read. “I’m sorry nothing worked.”

‘Key witnesses’ to provide testimony

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, took the opportunity on Monday to highlight the committee’s progress and paint Meadows, as well as a handful of other Trump allies who continue to defy the panel, as outliers.

“This week, I expect that roughly a dozen key witnesses will provide testimony on the record in our investigation. We’ll hear from many more informally as we continue to gather facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes,” Thompson said. “That should put us well north of the 300 mark in terms of witnesses who have given us information. Add to that more than 30,000 records, and nearly 250 substantive tips on our tip line.”

The committee informed Meadows last week that it had “no choice” but to advance criminal contempt proceedings against him given that he had decided to no longer cooperate with its investigation.

“Mr. Meadows started by doing the right thing — cooperating. He handed over records that he didn’t try to shield behind some excuse,” Thompson said on Monday.

“But in an investigation like ours, that’s just a first step. When the records raise questions — as these most certainly do — you have to come in and answer those questions. And when it was time for him to follow the law, come in, and testify on those questions, he changed his mind and told us to pound sand. He didn’t even show up.”

Committee released report Sunday

On Sunday, the committee released its contempt report, which made public several details about Meadows’ actions before and during January 6, as well as his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

The committee noted that in one email Meadows sent to an individual about January 6, he said that “the National Guard would be present to ‘protect pro Trump people’ and that many more would be available on standby.”

Additionally, the committee said in the report that Meadows “exchanged text messages with, and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him that ‘[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately need some direction.'”

The new documents came as Meadows’ role was under renewed scrutiny following his decision to cease cooperating with the committee last week.
The committee has previously sought communications between Meadows and certain rally organizers as the panel remains focused on identifying any level of coordination with the Trump White House. The report went on to note that Meadows was directly involved in efforts to overturn the election results in key swing states Trump lost and helped push unfounded claims about voter fraud.

Before the Monday vote, Meadows’ lawyer had asked the panel to reconsider its plans.

In a letter to the committee, Meadows’ attorney George Terwilliger III said the “contemplated referral would be contrary to law” because his client is a senior official who made a “good-faith invocation of executive privilege and testimonial immunity.”

“A referral of a senior presidential aide would also be unwise because it would do great damage to the institution of the Presidency, as restraint in the application of the statute over time attests,” Terwilliger wrote.

Terwilliger said that Meadows’ choice to decline a deposition is an attempt to comply with his “legal obligations” as a former Trump adviser. “History and the law teach that this attempt is not a crime,” Terwilliger wrote.

Terwilliger also suggested the committee should allow the civil lawsuit Meadows filed against the panel to play out before moving to contempt — because a ruling in that case would resolve the questions surrounding privilege that are in dispute.

This story and headline have been updated with additional developments Monday.

CNN’s Kristin Wilson contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Capitol attack committee: ‘no choice’ but to advance contempt proceedings for Meadows – live | US news










18:01

Today so far










17:42

Updated










17:24

Biden warns of ‘economic consequences like none he’s ever seen’ if Putin invades Ukraine

Updated










16:54

Updated










16:37

Three Pfizer jabs likely to protect against Omicron, tests suggest

Three shots of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine are likely to provide effective protection against the Omicron variant, laboratory tests suggest.

The vaccine makers said they were keeping the option of an updated Omicron-based vaccine on the table, however, and could produce it by March 2022 if needed.

In the first official statement from vaccine manufacturers on the likely efficacy of their shot against Omicron, BioNTech/Pfizer said that two vaccine doses resulted in significantly lower neutralising antibodies but that a third dose of their vaccine appeared to bring antibody protection up to a level equivalent to two vaccine doses against the original strain.

The findings are broadly in line with a preliminary study published by researchers at the Africa Health Research Institute in South Africa on Tuesday, showing that Omicron can partially evade protection from two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

Updated










16:15










15:59

Updated










15:40










15:24

Capitol attack committee has ‘no choice’ but to advance contempt proceedings against Meadows

Updated










14:57










14:57










14:57

House passes $768bn defense bill in bipartisan vote, despite progressive criticism



Read original article here

Steve Bannon pleading not guilty to contempt of Congress charges

The notice came in advance of a hearing set for Thursday morning — scheduled to be Bannon’s first appearance before US District Judge Carl Nichols, who will oversee his case and any potential trial for contempt for failing to testify or turn over documents in the House’s January 6 investigation. Bannon said he did not need to have his charges read by the judge in open court, according to the filing.

Judge Carl Nichols accepted the plea Thursday.

Bannon’s plea kicks off court proceedings for what he has promised will be an acrimonious defense.

The ex-adviser to former President Donald Trump had appeared in court on Monday after being charged last week with one count related to his refusal to appear for a deposition and another related to his refusal to produce documents to the House select committee. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of one year in jail, as well as a fine of up to $100,000, the Department of Justice said.

“I’m telling you right now, this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for (Attorney General) Merrick Garland, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden,” Bannon told reporters after the hearing, swearing his team is “going to go on the offense.”

Prosecutors did not seek to detain him before trial. Under conditions approved by the judge, Bannon agreed to weekly check-ins, to surrender his passport, provide notice of any travel outside the district and seek court approval for travel outside the continental United States.

The House select committee had subpoenaed documents and testimony from Bannon in early October. In seeking his cooperation, the panel has pointed to reports that Bannon spoke to Trump in the lead-up to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, that he was present in the so-called war room of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, as the attack was unfolding and that he made comments on his podcast the previous day predicting that “all hell” was “going to break loose” the next day.

“In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions,” the House committee said in its report putting forward a contempt resolution.

This story has been updated with additional information Thursday.

Read original article here

Bannon indicted on contempt charges for defying 1/6 subpoena

WASHINGTON (AP) — Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, has been indicted on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena from the House committee investigating the violent Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

The Justice Department said Friday that Bannon, 67, was indicted on one count for refusing to appear for a deposition last month and one count for refusing to provide documents in response to the committee’s subpoena. Each count carries a minimum of 30 days of jail and as long as a year behind bars.

Bannon is expected to surrender to authorities on Monday and will appear in court that afternoon, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the case and spoke on condition of anonymity.

A parade of Trump administration officials, including Bannon, have defied requests and demands from Congress over the past five years with little consequence, including during Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. President Barack Obama’s administration also declined to charge two of its officials who defied congressional demands.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Bannon’s indictment reflects the Justice Department’s “steadfast commitment” to the rule of law.

The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress on Oct. 21 after he refused to show up for a deposition or even engage with the committee as it investigates the siege of Trump’s supporters that was the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries.

A second expected witness, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, defied his own subpoena from the committee on Friday, as Trump has escalated his legal battles to withhold documents and testimony about the insurrection.

If the House votes to hold Meadows in contempt, that recommendation would go to the Justice Department for a possible indictment. The chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters at an event in his home state Friday that he will recommend contempt charges against Meadows this coming week.

In a statement, Thompson and the committee’s Republican vice chairwoman, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, said Bannon’s indictment “should send a clear message to anyone who thinks they can ignore the Select Committee or try to stonewall our investigation: no one is above the law.”

They added: “Mr. Meadows, Mr. Bannon, and others who go down this path won’t prevail.”

Officials in both Democratic and Republican administrations have been held in contempt by Congress, but criminal indictments for contempt are rare. The most recent notable examples of criminal penalties for not testifying before Congress date to the 1970s, including when President Richard Nixon’s aide G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of misdemeanor charges for refusing to answer questions about his role in the Watergate scandal.

Bannon and Meadows are key witnesses for the committee because they both were in close touch with Trump around the time of the insurrection.

Meadows was Trump’s top aide at the end of his presidency and was one of several people who pressured state officials to try and overturn the results of the 2020 election that Democrat Joe Biden won. Bannon promoted the Jan. 6 protests on his podcast after predicting the day before that “all hell is going to break loose.”

The indictment says Bannon didn’t communicate with the committee in any way from the time he received the subpoena on Sept. 24 until Oct. 7, when his lawyer sent a letter, seven hours after the documents were due.

Bannon, who left his job at the White House in 2017 and currently serves as host of the conspiracy-minded “War Room” podcast, is a private citizen who “refused to appear to give testimony as required by a subpoena,” the indictment says.

When Bannon declined to appear for his deposition in October, his attorney said the former Trump adviser had been directed by a lawyer for Trump, citing executive privilege, not to answer questions. Bannon’s attorney did not respond to a message seeking comment on Friday.

This is not the first time that Bannon has faced legal peril. In August of last year, Bannon was pulled from a luxury yacht and arrested on allegations that he and three associates ripped off donors trying to fund a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump pardoned Bannon in the final hours of his presidency.

Meadows, a former congressman from North Carolina, defied his subpoena after weeks of discussions with the committee. His lawyer said Meadows has a “sharp legal dispute” with the committee as Trump was asserting executive privilege Meadows’ testimony, as Trump had with Bannon’s.

The White House said in a letter Thursday that Biden would waive any privilege that would prevent Meadows from cooperating with the committee, prompting Meadows’ lawyer to say he would not comply.

“Legal disputes are appropriately resolved by courts,” said the lawyer, George Terwilliger. “It would be irresponsible for Mr. Meadows to prematurely resolve that dispute by voluntarily waiving privileges that are at the heart of those legal issues.”

Biden has waived most of Trump’s assertions of privilege over documents and interviews, citing the interest of the public in knowing what happened on Jan. 6. Trump sued the committee and the National Archives to stop the release of documents, and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has repeatedly backed Biden’s position, noting in one ruling this past week that “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

The committee’s proceedings and attempts to gather information have been delayed while Trump appealed Chutkan’s rulings. On Thursday, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked the release of some of the White House records the panel is seeking, giving that court time to consider Trump’s arguments.

Still, the committee is continuing its work, and members have interviewed more than 150 witnesses in an attempt to build a comprehensive record of how a violent mob of Trump’s supporters broke into the Capitol and temporarily halted the certification of Biden’s victory.

The committee has subpoenaed almost three dozen people, including former White House staffers, Trump allies who strategized about how to overturn his defeat and people who organized a giant rally near the White House on the morning of Jan. 6. While some, like Meadows and Bannon, have balked, several others have spoken to the panel and provided documents.

___

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Nomaan Merchant, Zeke Miller, Farnoush Amiri and Jill Colvin in Washington and Emily Wagster Pettus in Jackson, Mississippi, contributed to this report.

Read original article here

U.S. House holds Trump ally Steve Bannon in criminal contempt

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon exits the Manhattan Federal Court, following his arraignment hearing for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S. August 20, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

WASHINGTON, Oct 21 (Reuters) – Longtime Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon could face criminal prosecution for refusing to cooperate with a probe into the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol after the House of Representatives voted Thursday to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The Democratic-led chamber voted 229 to 202 with nine Republicans joining Democrats to recommend the charges against Bannon, who served as an aide to the former Republican president.

The matter will now be referred to the U.S. Justice Department, where Attorney General Merrick Garland will make the final decision on whether to prosecute.

Bannon has refused to comply with subpoenas from the Jan. 6 Select Committee seeking documents and his testimony, citing Trump’s insistence – disputed by some legal scholars – that his communications are protected by the legal doctrine of executive privilege.

“What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us?” Democrat Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Select Committee, said in debate before the vote.

The select committee voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of the charges.

THREAT OF JAIL TIME

The Democratic-led panel hopes the threat of jail time – contempt of Congress carries a penalty of up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine – encourages cooperation from the 18 other Trump aides and rally organizers who also have been subpoenaed.

Garland has yet to indicate how the department will respond. He told a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday the department would “apply the facts” and make decisions “consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

Most of Trump’s fellow Republicans in Congress opposed even creating either an independent commission or a select committee to investigate the events surrounding Jan. 6. That day thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol after he urged them in a fiery speech to protest his defeat by Democrat Joe Biden in a November 2020 election that Trump falsely claims was stolen.

Only two Republicans – Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – are on the nine-member select committee.

The contempt of Congress statute, passed in 1857, states that the Justice Department has a duty to bring a House contempt citation before a grand jury.

But the Justice Department historically has said it makes the ultimate decision about whether to prosecute individuals who defy congressional subpoenas. The last successful prosecution for contempt of Congress was in 1974 when a judge found Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy guilty.

Asked about the vote at his weekly news conference on Thursday, Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, said the subpoena for Bannon to testify was “invalid,” making the same executive privilege argument Bannon did.

Four people died on the day of the assault, and one Capitol police officer died the next day of injuries sustained in defense of the seat of government. Hundreds of police officers were injured and four have since taken their own lives.

PREDICTED ‘EXTREME EVENTS’

The select committee argued that Bannon had made statements suggesting he knew ahead of time about “extreme events” that would take place on Jan. 6, when Congress was scheduled to certify Biden as the winner of the presidential election.

Bannon said on a Jan. 5 podcast that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The next day, mobs of Trump supporters, many chanting “Stop the Steal” and “Hang Mike Pence,” attacked the Capitol as Vice President Pence and lawmakers met to certify the election.

The assault forced the lawmakers, congressional staff and journalists to flee as crowds rampaged through the building, raiding offices, smashing windows and stealing computers and other equipment.

The vote certification was delayed for several hours, but went ahead – despite votes against it by nearly 147 Republican members of Congress.

Trump has continued to insist falsely that his defeat was the result of fraud. Multiple courts, state election officials and members of Trump’s own administration have rejected that claim.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Jan. 6 panel votes to hold Steve Bannon in contempt

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection voted unanimously to hold former White House aide Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after the longtime ally of former President Donald Trump defied a subpoena for documents and testimony.

Still defending his supporters who broke into the Capitol that day, Trump has aggressively tried to block the committee’s work by directing Bannon and others not to answer questions in the probe. Trump has also filed a lawsuit to try to prevent Congress from obtaining former White House documents.

But lawmakers have made clear they will not back down as they gather facts and testimony about the attack involving Trump’s supporters that left dozens of police officers injured, sent lawmakers running for their lives and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

The committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Tuesday that Bannon “stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena” and the panel will not take no for an answer.

He said that while Bannon may be “willing to be a martyr to the disgraceful cause of whitewashing what happened on January 6th — of demonstrating his complete loyalty to the former president,” the contempt vote is a warning to other witnesses.

“We won’t be deterred. We won’t be distracted. And we won’t be delayed,” Thompson said.

The Tuesday evening vote sends the contempt resolution to the full House, which is expected to vote on the measure Thursday. House approval would send the matter to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to pursue criminal charges against Bannon.

The contempt resolution asserts that the former Trump aide and podcast host has no legal standing to rebuff the committee — even as Trump’s lawyer has argued that Bannon should not disclose information because it is protected by the privilege of the former president’s office. The committee noted that Bannon, fired from his White House job in 2017, was a private citizen when he spoke to Trump ahead of the attack. And Trump has not asserted any such executive privilege claims to the panel itself, lawmakers said.

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney — one of just two Republicans on the committee, and a rare GOP critic of Trump — said Bannon and Trump’s privilege arguments suggest the former president was “personally involved” in the planning and execution of the day’s events.

“We will get to the bottom of that,” Cheney said.

The committee says it is pursuing Bannon’s testimony because of his reported communications with Trump ahead of the siege, his efforts to get the former president to focus on the congressional certification of the vote Jan. 6 and his comments on Jan. 5 that “all hell is going to break loose” the next day.

Bannon “appears to have had multiple roles relevant to this investigation, including his role in constructing and participating in the ‘stop the steal’ public relations effort that motivated the attack” and “his efforts to plan political and other activity in advance of January 6th,” the committee wrote in the resolution recommending contempt.

The Biden White House has also rejected Bannon’s claims, with Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su writing Bannon’s lawyer this week to say that “at this point we are not aware of any basis for your client’s refusal to appear for a deposition.” Biden’s judgment that executive privilege is not justified, Su wrote, “applies to your client’s deposition testimony and to any documents your client may possess.”

Asked last week if the Justice Department should prosecute those who refuse to testify, Biden said yes. But the Justice Department quickly pushed back, with a spokesman saying the department would make its own decisions.

While Bannon has said he needs a court order before complying with his subpoena, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former White House and Pentagon aide Kashyap Patel have been negotiating with the committee. The panel has also subpoenaed more than a dozen people who helped plan Trump rallies ahead of the siege, and some of them are already turning over documents and giving testimony.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin said all the other witnesses who were subpoenaed are “either complying or acting in good faith as opposed to just blowing us off,” as Bannon has.

The committee is also conducting voluntary closed-door interviews with other witnesses who have come forward or immediately complied with their requests.

For some of the witnesses, Raskin said, “it’s a privilege and really an opportunity for them to begin to make amends, if they were involved in these events.” Some of them “feel terrible about the role they played,” he said.

Still, there could be more contempt votes to come.

“I won’t go into details in terms of the back and forth, but I’ll just say our patience is not infinite,” said Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the panel’s other Republican, about some of the witness negotiations.

The vote came a day after Trump sued the committee and the National Archives to fight the release of documents the committee has requested. Trump’s lawsuit, filed after Biden said he’d allow the documents’ release, claims that the panel’s August request was overly broad and a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition.”

Trump’s suit seeks to invalidate the entirety of the congressional request, calling it overly broad, unduly burdensome and a challenge to separation of powers. It requests a court injunction to bar the archivist from producing the documents.

The Biden administration, in clearing the documents for release, said the violent siege of the Capitol more than nine months ago was such an extraordinary circumstance that it merited waiving the privilege that usually protects White House communications.

___

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Colleen Long, Zeke Miller, Nomaan Merchant and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Read original article here

Committee investigating January 6 releases criminal contempt report detailing how Steve Bannon evaded subpoena

This report is the subject of a Tuesday business meeting to be held by the committee, which marks the first step in a series of moves that needs to be taken in order to move forward with holding Bannon in criminal contempt for not complying with the subpoena.

The criminal contempt report lays out all the correspondence between the committee and Bannon, revealing new details about what happened the day of his scheduled deposition and making his full subpoena publicly available for the first time.

Throughout the report, the committee makes the case for why Bannon’s claim of executive privilege does not hold up and lays out the legal argument for why he must comply with the subpoena.

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

The committee starts out by noting that executive privilege has not been officially invoked, and that there has been no communication with Trump over its invocation.

“The Select Committee has not been provided with any formal invocation of executive privilege by the President, the former President or any other employee of the executive branch,” the report says.

The committee also argues that Bannon was a private citizen during the period in which it is seeking information. “The law is clear,” the report states, “that executive privilege does not extend to discussions between the President and private citizens relating to non-governmental business or among private citizens.”

The report adds that “at no point during the time period under investigation by the Select Committee was Mr. Bannon a government employee, much less a key White House adviser in the Office of the President.”

The committee also argues that much of what it is seeking from Bannon does not involve his conversations with Trump and therefore should not be shielded.

Subpoena released in full

The report provides a detailed accounting of the select committee’s requests for documents and communications dating to April 1, 2020.

The subpoena lists 17 key areas of investigation and specifically directs Bannon to produce any permits and documents related to planning, financing, objectives and communications for the pro-Trump January 6 rally on the National Mall and Capitol complex grounds.

The requested documents include correspondence with former Trump aide Boris Epshteyn; copies of his podcasts in which he discusses false claims of election fraud or the rally; communications with Trump regarding January 6 and — more specifically — communications the two may have had on December 30; and communications with key Trump allies such as John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.

The committee asks Bannon to provide any communications with far-right extremist groups the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, as well as InfoWars creator Alex Jones.

On October 7, seven hours after Bannon was to provide documents to the committee, the report outlines that Bannon’s lawyer, Robert J. Costello, sent a letter to the committee explaining that his client refused to comply with the committee’s subpoena. Costello cited a letter from Trump’s counsel, Justin Clark, that instructed Bannon to not comply with the subpoena until a deal on executive privilege had been worked out.

“The two-page letter contained only conclusory statements, no legal analysis, and approximately half of it purported to quote from the letter of October 6, 2021, from the counsel to Mr. Trump,” the contempt report states.

On October 13, the report outlines that committee staff reached out to Costello via email to discuss logistics for Bannon’s deposition the following day. An hour later, staff and Costello spoke by phone and Costello informed the committee — ahead of the letter that was publicly released — that his client would not be appearing for a deposition.

Costello’s letter to the panel stated that his client will not provide testimony or documents until the committee reaches an agreement with Trump over executive privilege or a court weighs in on the matter.

The report addresses the letter, saying: “Mr. Costello’s October 13th letter merely states that the attorney for former President Trump had informed him that ‘President Trump is exercising his executive privilege.’ 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.”

On October 14, the day of Bannon’s scheduled deposition, committee staff and members including Rep. Adam Schiff and Senior Investigative Counsel Sean Tonolli, gathered at 10 a.m. and adjourned six minutes later when it was clear that Bannon was not going to appear. The report includes a transcript of that short meeting, during which Tonolli recaps what the correspondence with Bannon had been up until that point.

On October 15, according to the report, committee chairman Bennie Thompson sent a letter to Costello informing him that the committee planned to move forward with a criminal contempt referral, that Bannon does not have immunity from testifying and that Bannon had not attempted to provide any explanation for his refusal to provide documents unrelated to his communications with Trump.

Next steps

If the report is adopted out of committee on Tuesday, it is then referred to the House. If the vote succeeds, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi certifies the report to the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. Under law, this certification then requires the United States attorney to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,” but the Justice Department will also makes its own determinations for prosecuting.

Any individual who is found liable for contempt of Congress is then guilty of a crime that may result in a fine and between one and 12 months imprisonment. But this process is rarely invoked and rarely leads to jail time.

As severe as a criminal contempt referral sounds, the House’s choice to use the Justice Department may be more of a warning shot than a solution. Holding Bannon in criminal contempt through a prosecution could take years, and historic criminal contempt cases have been derailed by appeals and acquittals.

Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, who is one of the lawmakers serving on the committee, outlined that the ultimate goal of pursuing criminal contempt with Bannon is to get him to testify.

“Our goal is to have him testify. I think that this will send a strong message that there are consequences for not testifying,” Luria told CNN on Friday. “His testimony is very important for the committee.”

Last week, Thompson detailed the panel’s intent to pursue criminal contempt of Bannon.

“Mr. Bannon has declined to cooperate with the Select Committee and is instead hiding behind the former President’s insufficient, blanket, and vague statements regarding privileges he has purported to invoke,” the Mississippi Democrat said in a statement on Thursday.

This story has been updated with additional details from the report.

Read original article here

Steve Bannon faces last chance to testify on Capitol attack or risk contempt charges – live | US news











16:23











16:01











15:37











15:24

Updated











15:05











15:01











14:28

Good morning and welcome to the Guardian US politics liveblog…



Read original article here

Jan. 6 committee to ‘swiftly consider’ criminal contempt for Steve Bannon, others who ignore subpoenas

Bannon rebuffed the committee, citing Trump’s claim of executive privilege.

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot will “swiftly consider” holding one-time Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, and potentially others, in contempt of Congress for ignoring committee subpoenas, committee chairman Bennie Thompson vice-chair Liz Cheney said Friday.

The move came after Bannon formally advised the committee that he would be unable to comply with their requests, citing former President Donald Trump’s intention to invoke executive privilege. In a letter obtained by ABC News, Bannon’s lawyers said that until the matter is settled in court, they will not comply with the committee’s subpoena.

The committee last month issued subpoenas to Bannon and other top Trump aides Mark Meadows, Kash Patel and Dan Scavino, as part of its probe into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. An additional 11 subpoenas were issued last week to organizers of the pro-Trump rally that preceded the attack.

Meadows, a former White House chief of staff, and Patel, an ex-Pentagon official, are “engaging” with the committee, officials said. The committee had no update on the status of Scavino.

“While Mr. Meadows and Mr. Patel are, so far, engaging with the Select Committee, Mr. Bannon has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President,” Thompson and Cheney said in a joint statement. “The Select Committee fully expects all of these witnesses to comply with our demands for both documents and deposition testimony.”

Sources confirm to ABC News that Trump’s lawyer sent a letter to several of those subpoenaed informing them that the former president wants the subpoenas ignored and that he plans to claim executive privilege. In the letter, Trump suggested he would be willing to take the matter to court to block their cooperation.

However in an interview earlier this week with right-wing commentator John Solomon, Trump suggested that he would have no problem with his confidants participating in the probe.

“I’m mixed, because we did nothing wrong,” Trump said. “So I’m sort of saying, ‘Why are we hiring lawyers to do this?’ I’d like to just have everybody go in and say what you have to say. We did nothing wrong.”

Committee officials said that those who ignore the subpoenas could be held in contempt.

“Though the Select Committee welcomes good-faith engagement with witnesses seeking to cooperate with our investigation, we will not allow any witness to defy a lawful subpoena or attempt to run out the clock, and we will swiftly consider advancing a criminal contempt of Congress referral,” the statement said.

Any motion of contempt would be passed along for the full House to consider. If passed, the matter would then be referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.

Democrats considered holding Bannon in contempt of a House Intelligence Committee subpoena in 2018, but ultimately declined to do so. The full House voted to hold former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress in 2019 for ignoring House Oversight Committee subpoenas for records related to the 2020 census, but the Trump Justice Department ignored the requests.

Trump is also seeking to block the Jan. 6 committee from accessing selected documents held by the National Archives, which maintains control of White House records, including West Wing communications and visitor logs. On Friday he sent a letter to the agency asserting executive privilege over a tranche of documents that he said contain privileged presidential communications.

White House counsel Dara Remus said in an earlier letter to the agency that the White House “has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States,” but that they would “respond accordingly” if Trump asserts executive privilege over only a subset of the documents.

As of Friday, the committee has issued a total of 17 subpoenas, with most going to Trump associates and individuals linked to the rallies in Washington on the day of the Capitol riot.

The committee plans to schedule in-person depositions with cooperating witnesses in the coming weeks.

Read original article here