Now Reading
Steve Bannon: Jury convicts a Trump loyalist of disrespecting Congress

Steve Bannon: Jury convicts a Trump loyalist of disrespecting Congress

Former Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon was convicted guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress by a US jury. 

The failure of 68 years old Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the congressional committee looking into the circumstances leading up to the Capitol disturbance resulted in his indictment last year. 

At the time of the uprising on the 6th of January, 2021, the former White House chief strategist is rumored to have served as an unofficial adviser to Mr. Trump. 

He could spend up to two years in prison and pay fines of up to $200,000 (£167,000). 

Speaking to journalists outside of the courtroom, Mr. Bannon vowed to get the judgment overturned on what his attorney described as a “bullet-proof appeal.” 

He declared, “We may have lost the battle here today, but we’re not going to lose this war.” 

On the 21st of October, he will face a sentencing hearing. 

By refusing a necessary court summons from the congressional committee looking into the 6th January break-in at the US Capitol, Mr. Bannon felt “beyond the law,” according to attorneys with the US Department of Justice. 

His attorneys however asserted that Mr. Bannon was the target of political retaliation in the trial. 

They claimed that instead of disregarding the subpoenas, he thought he was negotiating on them and that the deadlines in the summons were adjustable rather than fixed. 

The road that Mr. Bannon pursued came out to be a mistake, according to attorney Evan Corcoran’s closing arguments, but “was not a crime.” 

On Friday, the 12-person jury panel discussed for just under three hours before making a decision. 

His involvement in Trump supporters’ attempts to storm Congress and contest the results of the 2020 election has long been suspected by the panel. 

The executive privilege, a legal doctrine that states that communications between presidents and their advisers are protected from disclosure to allow for candid advice, was something else he insisted his chats with the former president was covered by. 

However, a judge decided he was ineligible to assert privilege in this situation.

What's Your Reaction?
In Love
Not Sure
View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll To Top