Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
STEVE BANNON, THE combative former chief strategist for US President Donald Trump, was interrogated for 20 hours over two days this week as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, according to a person familiar with the process.
The person, who declined to be named because they were not authorised to publicly discuss the investigation, said Bannon answered every question that was put to him by Mueller’s team.
That’s in contrast to an interview yesterday with the House intelligence committee, where Bannon declined to answer some of lawmakers’ questions, despite a subpoena.
While the exact questions for Bannon are unknown, Mueller is investigating whether there was any coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russians who meddled in the 2016 election, and also whether there have been any efforts to obstruct the ongoing FBI probe into those contacts.
The House panel is investigating the meddling and whether Trump’s campaign was involved.
Because Bannon was one of Trump’s top advisers, both Mueller and the lawmakers were expected to question him about key events during his time in the White House, including Trump’s firings of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former FBI Director James Comey.
After Bannon’s roughly three-hour interview on Capitol Hill, Republicans on the House intelligence panel were weighing whether to hold him in contempt.
Like his first visit to the House intelligence committee in January, Bannon declined to answer questions in the closed-door session.
According to lawmakers of both parties, Bannon would only answer 25 questions that had been pre-approved by the White House when asked about any events in the time period after President Donald Trump’s election.
His answer to each question was “no” and he told the committee he was not authorised to elaborate.
Bannon was already under subpoena as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been critical of the White House’s sweeping interpretation of executive privilege and its contention that pretty much everything is off-limits until the president says it’s not.
Central figure
The escalating fight between Congress and the White House over the privilege issue has centered around Bannon, an outsized figure in Trump’s campaign and White House and an inspiration to some conservatives as he has publicly battled the Republican establishment.
He was fired from the White House last summer, and more recently had a falling out with Trump after the January publication of a book in which he sharply criticised Trump family members.
Despite his fractured relationship with Trump, Bannon has followed White House direction as the House lawmakers have sought to talk to him.
At issue is whether Bannon can talk about the presidential transition, his time at the White House and communications with Trump and others since he left last summer.
Texas Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the panel’s Russia probe, said Bannon would only answer the pre-approved questions about any time period past the day Trump was elected in November 2016.
He said committee Republicans would discuss whether to hold Bannon in contempt with House lawyers and with House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is likely to have the final say.
“That’s an ongoing conversation we’ll have among an awful lot of lawyers,” Conaway said after Bannon’s interview.
At least one Republican on the intelligence panel said before the interview that a contempt vote would be necessary if Bannon were uncooperative.
Florida Representative Tom Rooney said on Tuesday that if Bannon didn’t cooperate with the panel and they didn’t hold him in contempt, that would set a bad precedent.
“For not just our committee but every committee, that (subpoenas) don’t mean anything, that it’s just a hollow threat,” Rooney said. “You can’t do that.”
‘Stonewalling’
Democrats are pushing for a contempt vote, with the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, California Representative Adam Schiff, saying he believed Bannon’s non-answers were all an attempt to draw out and block the Russia probe.
“That’s not how privilege works, that’s how stonewalling works,” Schiff said. “And we cannot take that kind of stonewalling for an answer.”
Negotiations between the House and White House have been ongoing since Bannon’s first interview, and several interviews have been scheduled and postponed in recent weeks. Lawmakers headed into the meeting ahead of Bannon’s entrance appeared unsure if he would arrive.
Bannon is one of the committee’s few remaining witnesses in its Russia probe, which Republicans on the panel have said they want to wrap up early this year.
The Senate intelligence committee is running a separate investigation into the Russian meddling. The Senate panel hasn’t yet spoken to Bannon, according to a source familiar with the probe. The person declined to be named because the interview schedule isn’t public.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Hopefully Sloppy Steve told the truth
@Dr Rex Butts: if he lied to the FBI he can be charged with a crime. That’s the law. The FBI will ask questions of which they have factual evidence obtained by investigation or surveillance. FBI interviews are not sworn testimony, in the Executive branch. In the Legislative Branch (congress) or Judicial Branch (court) it is sworn testimony and a response can be refused to be given under Fifth Amendment rights of citizens, to avoid lying or perjury of oneself.
@Mark Fields: yup, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully … makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” The same statute has been used to convict and imprison Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, Martha Stewart, and Jeffrey Skilling.
@Dave O Keeffe: the point being that with his interview by the FBI he HAD to answer questions and was not giving sworn testimony. He could not simply say nothing.
@Mark Fields: Since when has lying ever been an issue with this administration
@Mark Fields: that’s a lot easier when the white house chooses your questions
sorry, that was in the case of the Senate
@Mark Fields: Yes he could. You’re perfectly entitled not to answer the FBI’s questions.
@Ben McArthur: the real risk in speaking freely is that he doesn’t know what thru have already been told. If he contradicts someone else he can be arrested.
This is telling that a person who was not permitted to publicly discuss the Bannon interview reveals information about the interview then can remain anonymous. The people involved in the Mueller investigation are corrupt.
@Mark Fields: all they said was that he answered every question. Hardly earth shattering stuff.
@Dave O Keeffe: in other words “only a little corrupt”.
@Mark Fields: You’re assuming that the leak came from Mueller’s side. It might have come from Bannon’s side.
@Stephen Blott: correct, Bannon and his team and the Trump team are familiar with the proceedings too
If Bannon had said anything bad for Trump Mullier team would have leaked it to CNN….One year later this whole Russian conspiracy is more imaginary than real….Wont stop Democrats expanding its terms and keeping it going for next 7 years Trump is president….
@John003: Not true. Muller indicted members of the Trump team without any media warning, none of it was leaked.
Just because the media aren’t in the know doesn’t mean he’s empty handed from the Bannon questioning.
Some of those establishment Republicans hate Bannon just as much as the Democrats do…
Unfortunately, it seems that Feinstein damaged the integrity of these congressional closed door interviews with her antics in the Senate Judiciary committee. Not sure if that action is having any effect in this instance.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: I think having it stipulated that your questions have to be pre-approved by the people that are under investigation looks really, really bad.
@Dave O Keeffe: He answered everything asked of him during the Mueller interview. Why would the administration restrict him from answering similar questions in a closed door congressional interview?
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: he did answer the congressional questions, but commented he was not allowed to elaborate his responses.
@Mark Fields: He answered 25 pre-approved questions with the answer “no”….Both parties say he failed to interact with the committee. I’m wondering why he was restricted from given the same responses he did in the Mueller interview to the committee. Especially considering it is a closed interview.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: I have a theory, Republicans don’t run the FBI and would be more likely to pursue him for not answering properly. Republicans in the Senate got stonewalled and don’t know if they should do anything about it.
@Dave O Keeffe: No that theory doesn’t make sense for me.
If he has already answered all the questions in the Mueller interview, what does anyone have to gain by restricting him from answering similar questions in a closed session interview with the committee?
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: it’s not what’s to gain, it’s what’s to be lost. Opposition questions would be antagonistic if it’s a free forum. Bannon doesn’t strike me as the type to hold his tongue. With Mueller they have no say in the questions. This allows them an element of control. Refusing to answer pre-approved questions is a display of control. The Senate won’t push anything against Bannon because they don’t have the numbers. The committee doesn’t mean much anyway since the memo debacle.
@Dave O Keeffe: You don’t think that the questions that Mueller and his team will ask Bannon will be antagonistic? Or that they will be less antagonistic than the committee? Mueller’s team consists of some the the top prosecutors and legal minds in the US, out of a population of 350 million people.
Between Mueller and the committee, the committee is the easier place to be asked questions. Without a shadow of a doubt.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: deciding what questions your political opponents are allowed to ask you is a massive bonus. We’ve seen these House and Senate committees. They are not conducted under the same rules that the FBI are bound by. As the FBI would be using anything gained (if there is anything) for a case they are bound by the relevant laws. The House committee does not have that concern. Take the memo for example. Look how the committee acted and then look how the FBI responded. They are bound.
@Untriggered Non-Snowflake: You are assuming he answered honestly and completely. Something I personally doubt very much.
@David Knight: If Bannon didn’t answer truthfully in Mueller’s interview, he is in trouble.
The simple fact of the matter is that at this stage of the investigation Mueller and his team essentially have all the facts gathered already. They know Trump, Kuschners, and Bannons actions better than they know their past actions themselves.
Imagine listening to that egit for 20 hours..
have your say