The NPR Politics Podcast - Steve Bannon, Former Top Trump Aide, Charged With Contempt Of Congress

Episode Date: November 15, 2021

Bannon was indicted last week for defying a congressional subpoena related to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. He surrendered this morning to federal authorities and has been released pending trial.This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and congressional reporter Carrie Grisales.Connect:Subscribe to the NPR Politics Podcast here.Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Listen to our playlist The NPR Politics Daily Workout.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Autograph Collection Hotels, with over 300 independent hotels around the world, each exactly like nothing else. Autograph Collection is part of the Marriott Bonvoy portfolio of hotel brands. Find the unforgettable at AutographCollection.com. Hey y'all, this is Jamie from Durham, North Carolina. I'm currently holding a plank for a minute and 10 seconds as part of Planksgiving. This podcast was recorded at? 2.20 p.m. on the 15th of November.

It's a Monday. Things may have changed by the time you hear this, but I'll be one day closer to a three-minute plank on November 30th. Okay, here's the show. I want in. You know, I was for a long time doing a minute plank every morning. Whoa. And then my wrists started hurting. Well, I feel bad about myself because I just had some fried chicken. But you know what? Tomorrow is another day.

I feel like that's a reason to feel good about yourself, because you just got yourself some fried chicken. I did. There was no exercise involved. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Claudia Grisales. I cover Congress. And I'm Carrie Johnson, national justice correspondent. Trump ally Steve Bannon refused to sit for a deposition with the House of Representatives about his role in the events leading up to the January 6th attack on the Capitol building. It was a failed effort to stop the certification of the election.

Last week, a grand jury indicted him on two charges of contempt of Congress. And earlier today, he turned himself in. I'm never going to back down. And they took on the wrong guy this time, OK? Claudia Carey, let's start with contempt of Congress. What is it? So contempt of Congress is essentially any action that obstructs the effort of Congress to exercise its constitutional power. So this is what we see in other criminal investigations when we hear about obstruction. This is that version. But for Congress, here they are investigating the January 6th attack. They're looking at making legislative proposals related to this attack and also

putting together this comprehensive report as to who played what role that built up to that attack that day. And so for Bannon in particular, this is what he's facing, this contempt of Congress for what the committee says is obstructing their investigation into the January 6th attack. Carrie, he had his first court appearance today, and you were watching the live stream of that. Yeah, I was listening to the live stream. You know, he actually did live stream his turning himself into the FBI, which is a very 2021 thing to do, and made some negative remarks about the Biden regime on his way in the door to be booked on these contempt of Congress charges. The judge, the magistrate judge in this case, released him on his own personal recognizance. That means no

cash bond. And Bannon has been required to turn over his passport and once a week check in with pretrial services. But the court proceedings against him are underway. He's got a couple of lawyers, including one that may be familiar to the audience of this pod, David Schoen, who helped defend former President Trump during his second impeachment. And do we know, Claudia, why Bannon chose not to cooperate with Congress on this? So multiple times during exchanges with the committee, his attorney, in this case, this was Robert Costello, told the committee that they were watching a lawsuit that former President Trump filed against the committee, National Archives as well, regarding some documents from his administration, the previous administration.

And they raised concern that executive privilege, this is a claim that Trump is trying to assert as well, even though it belongs to the sitting president. But Bannon is saying that he's trying to follow the former president's lead here, and he may have to follow this executive privilege as well in terms of this shield and not cooperate, not get in front of the committee for a deposition, not turn over documents, because Trump has signaled this not only through this lawsuit that he filed against the committee, but also remarks to these advisors, these allies, that they do not need to cooperate. So he's following former President Trump's lead here. Carrie, in terms of the law, I remember covering Steve

Bannon getting fired in like August of 2017. He hadn't worked in the government or in the Trump administration for a very long time. That's exactly right. And those are two things the Justice Department cited in the decision to pursue criminal charges against Steve Bannon. One is that Trump, who is trying to assert executive privilege, is not the current president. He's the former president. And the guy currently sitting in the Oval Office, Joe Biden, has decided not to try to protect these documents and this evidence on the basis, I think, that January 6th was a uniquely problematic and disturbing moment in the democracy. And the second point is the one you just made, Tam. Steve Bannon was on the outs with Donald Trump and literally out of the White House since

2017. How could a privilege designed to protect the most sensitive communications between a president and his advisors apply to a guy who hadn't even been around for four years? I guess it's a question we will get an answer to eventually, maybe. Right. So contempt of Congress is something that I think is talked about a lot, but doesn't actually go all the way very often. Can you walk us through the history of this charge and how it's worked out

in the past? So Congress has looked at this as one of several options to try and force a witness, perhaps to cooperate, if not look at punitive damages if they do not. And so that's what we're seeing with criminal contempt is they're not getting that testimony. And so they're not getting that deposition. They're not getting those documents such as the case for Bannon. And so it is unusual when I talk to former House impeachment lawyers, they tell me that this is an option they could not consider under a Trump DOJ, that they could not refer such a criminal contempt charge because nothing would happen. They would have to

pursue largely any options here to try and force that testimony, to force that deposition through the civil route, the civil litigation route. And so that can drag out for years. And so the committee sees this as an opportunity. The members, they say they can get into this quickly under a Biden Justice Department, as we've seen this just play out. But it is unusual even for the House to take this up, as well as the steps that follow. You know, as somebody who's covered the Justice Department for a long time, longer than I'd like to admit in public, these executive privilege fights happen a lot. They tend to happen with matters of scandal and controversy. I remember the first one I covered involved the firing of several U.S. attorneys in the George W. Bush years

where top White House advisors, including Josh Bolton and Harriet Myers, were covered under an executive privilege assertion and Congress wanted answers. And then it came up again in that failed ATF operation known as Fast and Furious, where Congress wanted answers from then Attorney General Eric Holder. But none of those controversies resulted in any kind of criminal charges. This is the first one I can remember proceeding to indictment in a really long time. All right. We are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk through how this could play out. And we're back. And I

wanted to talk to you guys about how this might play out, what this could mean for Bannon personally, whether this is something that would go to trial or a verdict or just how this might work? These are misdemeanor charges. So they carry a maximum penalty of up to one year in jail on each charge. But people who have been sentenced in the past have gotten probation. So I'm not sure that jail time is in the cards, even if Steve Bannon is convicted and sentenced at any time in this kind of case. Right now, though, he really appears to be digging in his heels and not wanting to change his mind about cooperating with the committee. I don't know what Claudia is hearing from the Hill on that. Yeah, it looks like he's really dug in with this.

In some ways, it appears it's some sort of badge of loyalty, if you will, to the former president. So it's sending a message in terms of we're following your lead here, former President Trump, on not cooperating with this committee. So this indictment, in theory, sends a signal to any number of other Trump advisors and loyalists who are currently refusing to participate with the committee's investigation or who are claiming executive privilege. But does it really send a signal? You know, that's what they hope. It was really interesting the way the news played out on Friday. Earlier that day, former chief of staff for Trump, Mark Meadows, was due to testify

in front of the committee. They were giving him, they say, a last chance to appear. He did not. And so we were waiting that day to see what response they might take. They waited until the ban and news came out. It appeared to send out a new statement saying, Mark Meadows, we're thinking about criminal contempt for you as well. And so it's a message they're sending. Thirty-five folks have been subpoenaed by this panel so far. We're thinking about criminal contempt for you as well. And so it's a message they're sending.

Thirty-five folks have been subpoenaed by this panel so far. More are to come, maybe as early as this week. And of those, only one has come in. They mentioned earlier Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who only exerted privilege, did not specifically answer the panel's questions. And so they're hoping that this is going to work in their favor and send a very large message. But that said, the committee has met with more than 150 witnesses. They're not naming these folks. So this is part of the committee's work that's operating in the shadows that we don't get to see as clearly. So we don't know who is appearing in front of the committee unless that witness comes forward to identify themselves.

But they are getting a lot of information, thousands of pages from other requests they've made. And so they are making progress there. But they're also hoping this Bannon situation sends a very large message to those who have yet to cooperate. Let me just say that for all along, for me, push is going to come to shove in the person of Mark Meadows, right? I mean, he's the chief of staff to Trump during this period. He's in the room with the president. And he's also one of the officers who may be most protected by this doctrine of executive privilege. If you want a president to get good advice and candid advice and to consider sensitivities, the conversations between a president and a chief of staff are essential. And so the way the courts and the way the Justice Department wind up drawing the line

when it comes to Mark Meadows, that's going to be fascinating. A, because he's arguably much more protected legally than somebody like Steve Bannon, who's a podcaster and a provocateur. And B, he may know a lot more about what the committee wants and what exactly Donald Trump was doing and what he knew at the time. And that's why, you know, conversations and communications that Meadows lawyer George Terwilliger, a former Justice Department official, is having with the Hill and trying to have with the Justice Department, and it may eventually decide what to do about Meadows, are going to be really important. And Terwilliger wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post over the weekend basically saying he hopes

that cooler heads prevail at the Justice Department, and they're able to come up with some kind of compromise or middle ground. I don't know that Mark Meadows wants to share all the secrets that he knows. And so I don't know if there is, in fact, a middle ground. But the legal decision regarding Meadows is going to be a lot harder for the Justice Department than the one involving Steve Bannon was. And politically for Mark Meadows, the calculation, I mean, here's somebody who probably wants to have a future in politics, but who is very closely tied to Trump at this point. And cooperating would not be good for his political career necessarily. You got that right. But not cooperating may also not be great for his political career. Certainly, it's a nuisance. It's more than a nuisance for government

officials to get hauled before Congress in this way. And it's embarrassing nuisance. It's more than a nuisance for government officials to get hauled before Congress in this way. And it's embarrassing to be sanctioned in public like that. And it seems to be that Merrick Garland and the Justice Department have made the calculation that this particular time, as the Biden White House has made this calculation too, that this particular time is different than other investigations. This investigation is not like all other investigations. I think that's exactly right. The Attorney General has been clear from the start in his personal horror surrounding the events of January 6th. And he said in announcing the Bannon charges

that in word and in deed, his Justice Department is going to adhere to the rule of law, follow the facts, and basically make sure that everybody gets treated equally when it comes to decisions made by the Justice Department. Well, we are going to leave it there for today, and we will keep watching this. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Claudia Grisales. I cover Congress. And I'm Carrie Johnson, national justice correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.