From the Willard to Danbury Correctional: Steve Bannon Allegedly Joins the Conspiracy

One of Danbury’s Federal Correctional Institution’s most illustrious residents likely discovered on Wednesday that he had been promoted.

Steve Bannon is now P1, a feature player in Jack Smith’s latest description of Trump’s conspiracies to steal the election.

The initial description of Bannon in Jack Smith's immunity filing.

Bannon’s new prominence in Smith’s description has been noted by others. NYT noted it in a story on yesterday’s front page, cataloging at some length how Bannon’s described role in this has changed. WaPo noted it too, though with far less detail than NYT.

But Smith did more than simply talk about Bannon a lot.

He promoted him: right up into the group Smith says entered into a conspiracy with Trump.

A screen cap using red boxes to show that Steve Bannon, referred to as P1, is included among those referred to as “private co-conspirators.”

There are Rudy Giuliani (CC1), John Eastman (CC2), Sidney Powell (CC3), Ken Chesebro (CC5), Boris Epshteyn (CC6), and Steve Bannon (P1), listed as “private co-conspirators.” By contrast, even Mike Roman (P5), described as a co-conspirator when he was ginning up riots at Michigan’s TCF Center, is described in this introductory paragraph as an “agent,” along with Bill Stepien (P2), Justin Clark (P3), and Jason Miller (P4).

The distinction may be a legalism. The other P-labeled people mentioned in this paragraph were employed by Trump’s campaign, whereas none of the co-conspirators were. To admit the words and actions of those private lawyers and political operatives — the co-conspirators — under a hearsay exception, prosecutors need to persuade Judge Chutkan that they entered into an agreement to commit crimes together. That is, the designation may be about nothing more than making evidence readily admissible without having to call these people as witnesses at some hypothetical trial if SCOTUS ever lets Jack Smith have one.

But it must reflect a change in the way Jack Smith has come to treat Bannon over the last 14 months. The reason why Rudy and the others have “CC” labels, designating them as co-conspirators, is because they did in the original indictment. Those labels were retained with the superseding indictment to minimize confusion; even with Jeffrey Clark (formerly CC4) removed, Chesebro and Epshteyn retained their old numbers, 5 and 6.

Bannon didn’t even make it into the superseding indictment.

But he shows up in the Immunity filing at least nine times (where these incidents show up in the January 6 Report I’ve included links — a number of these details were already known).

  1. October 31: “He’s gonna declare himself a winner.” J6C (Originally sourced to MoJo)
  2. November 13: “Trump just fired.”
  3. December 13: Bannon resumes daily contact.
  4. December 14: Alternate electors. J6C
  5. January 2: “The Vice President’s role is not “ministerial.” J6C
  6. January 4: Pre-Pence Willard Hotel meeting, from which Rudy calls Trump.
  7. January 4: Post-Pence Willard Hotel meeting.
  8. January 5: “Fuck his lawyer.”
  9. January 5: Call with Trump before “All hell is going to break loose.” J6C

Prosecutors added a reference to Bannon’s explanation of the plan to declare victory on October 31. They described that Bannon knew, in real time, that Trump was going to fire his campaign staff and put Rudy in charge. For some reason they suggest Bannon fell out of regular contact for a month (remember that immediately after the election, Bannon — not yet pardoned out of his Build the Wall charges — threatened to put Chris Wray’s head on a pike), only to rejoin again on December 13, just as the fake elector plot was getting up and rolling. There were a number of famous comments that appeared on Bannon’s podcast, including the prediction, on January 5, that “All hell is going to break loose” on January 6.

And then there are two meetings on January 4, both before and after the effort to pressure Pence to throw out Joe Biden’s votes. In the meeting prior to that January 4 meeting with Pence, Rudy called Trump while they were meeting at the Willard. Trump was on the phone with the plotters in the Willard Hotel.

A screen cap showing that Rudy called Trump while the co-conspirators were meeting at the Willard Hotel.

The Trump conspiracy has finally reached the Willard Hotel.

To be clear, none of this means Bannon will be charged. The five remaining co-conspirators have been sitting out there for 14 months without being charged (though it doesn’t make sense to charge anyone until you ensure that Trump wouldn’t just pardon them out of their trouble, like he did the last time and already did once with Bannon).

Bannon’s inclusion as a co-conspirator may mean little more than that his communications are of some import to tell this story — perhaps his prediction that Trump would declare victory, perhaps his involvement in Trump’s decision to replace his campaign team with Rudy (remember that Robert Costello was involved in all this, building off the common purpose with the Hunter Biden “laptop”).

But those details could have come in via Boris Epshteyn. They’re captured in texts between the two (the delay in including Bannon could arise from a delay in reconstructing someone’s phone).

Where you’d need Bannon’s designation as a co-conspirator in particular is his prediction that, “all hell is going to break loose,” after his conversation with Trump.

Still that was all available back in August 2023, when this was first indicted. As noted, it was included in the J6C.

Which raises the question of whether Jack Smith has new information, perhaps about those two meetings at the Willard, bookending the January 4 attempt to pressure Pence. The filing describes that Rudy, Eastman, Epshteyn, and Bannon attended the meeting beforehand, from which Rudy called Trump; Rudy is not described to have attended the meeting afterwards. But that doesn’t rule out someone else attending those meetings, and some possible attendees have entered cooperation agreements in the state conspiracy cases (though Chesebro does not appear to have attended the meetings). Absent someone who attended the meetings cooperating, Smith might have little more from those meetings than business records from the Willard and calendars to prove they were all there (though he did get proffers from Rudy and Epshteyn).

The Federal conspiracy charges against Donald Trump have finally arrived at the Willard Hotel, and they brought along Steve Bannon as a co-conspirator.

Update: Added the screencap showing that Rudy called Trump while the co-conspirators were meeting at the Willard Hotel before the Pence meeting.

image_print
77 replies
  1. JusticeofthePeace says:

    Paragraph after the list: “Wray — not yet pardoned out of his Build the Wall charges — threatened to put Chris Wray’s head on a pike)”. That first “Wray” should be “Bannon,” right?

  2. P J Evans says:

    I think you mean Bannon here, right after the list of dates:

    (remember that immediately after the election, Wray — not yet pardoned out of his Build the Wall charges

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I think we discussed some time ago, wondered, really, whether Trump attended a few of those meetings via phone or some other link, such that he knew exactly what happened real time, but could legitimately say that he wasn’t there.

    • JanAnderson says:

      These days the meaning of ‘you were there’ isn’t in the physical sense anymore.
      Uh uh. :-)

    • GSSH-FullyReduced says:

      Ah yes, The Willard Hotel, original nest of MAGAts where they feasted on the rotting flesh of our Constitution and the hatched flies landed on J6.
      Maybe Jack has a ‘fly one the wall’ there who wants to tell us all what really happened.

  4. Chuffy sez says:

    Wasn’t Alito involved in the J6 coup attempt? I can’t seem to find it online, but I seem to remember that he was the guy who was supposed to validate the election being overturned in favor of DJT, but Pence didn’t play ball, so he wasn’t called upon…

    The Roberts Court sure seems corrupt, and if he’s trying to cover up the involvement of Thomas and Alito, he’s doing a pretty good job of it. It looks to me like Jack Smith is loaded for bear, and isn’t pulling punches wrt SCOTUS…maybe he’s got stuff that implicates them, too.

  5. Savage Librarian says:

    Christina Bobb was at the Willard. She worked with Giuliani and others. In her wiki under the tab, “Involvement in attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election” it says this:

    “Trump campaign director of election day operations, Mike Roman, had spoken with teams in seven states Biden had won who were focused on the effort to appoint false electors. Roman reported developments to Bobb, who then relayed them to recipients that included Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Boris Epshsteyn and one-time Trump attorneys Joe diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Bobb

  6. Estragon says:

    All roads lead back to the Willard. One wonders if Jack Smith can connect the dots from the Willard to the Comfort Inn Ballston, which for some reason was all I could think about listening to EW on the podcast today. If Trump loses and the pardons evaporate I wonder if one of the J6 choir might sing another tune about who knew what about the weps.

    Mike Roman “let them riot” is spookily similar to the (now excluded) comments from Jeffrey Clark: “well, Pat, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for.” They were all on the same page, singing from the same hymnal, so to speak

      • Rayne says:

        You’ve been here long enough to know that YouTube links shouldn’t be dropped here without context even if a joke. Unlike micro blog platforms there’s no preview.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Sorry. The clip only has one line, which made it impossible to provide context without giving the point away. But go ahead and remove it if you’d like.

          [Moderator’s note: links shared without context are a perfect vector for malware relying on the trust between community members here. The next such context-free link will be removed. /~Rayne]

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Unnamed and unreferenced, still, is Roger Stone. His Easter Island-head-shaped absence looms over all these discussions of meetings at the Willard.

      I wonder if Jack Smith’s play here is to make Stone sweat? Or has he in fact secretly been spilling it to the prosecutor? Last I heard he was angry to Trump for not pardoning him–again–at the end of Trump’s first, and hopefully last, term.

  7. bgThenNow says:

    I’ve been reading legal analyses thanks to MW’s links in various posts about the official vs unofficial/private actions, and how they are being delineated in the Smith documents. I’m actually a bit amazed at the distinctions made by some of the players in one role or another/in meetings/activities etc. where there seemingly were efforts to draw some kind of line between the President and the Campaign throughout? Were some of these people actually acting as legit lawyers giving advise about the Hatch Act (one example) and drawing lines around some of this in real time? Considering all of the shenanigans, it seems improbable.

    I have focused on the fake electors from my state in which there was a kind of escape clause in the fake document, which apparently prevented our AG from charging them. I learned recently that one of the original legit electors, one of our richest citizens, who withdrew as an elector when Eastman came calling, is a graduate of Columbia Law. I guess he smelled a fish himself, not as I assumed, that it was his lawyers who advised him to get out. But he did not participate in the scheme, and maybe it was he who told the fakers they better put that escape language in the document.

    Apparently some of these clowns did try to play by the rules, to my surprise. Chutkin’s responses to Lauro indicate he is willing to put his reputation at risk, at the behest of his client. Roberts OTOH played along with Lauro, looking for his own way to manipulate the process.

    Thanks, so much Marcy and thanks also to the regulars who remind and fill information for those of us without the capacity to hold all the details otherwise.

    • emptywheel says:

      Tom Marino?

      Yeah, there were ones and twos who backed out in several states. In MI, Teri Lynn Land, the former SoS, did.

      • bgThenNow says:

        Harvey Yates, Yates Petroleum. I just read the AG’s report on the fake electors investigation showing I am wrong about HY’s withdrawal: he was out of state at the time he was needed for the scheme so was replaced by party officials, and also I’m wrong about the origin of the escape clause. Nepotism seems not unlike elsewhere with party officials in the scheme. https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/FE-Final-Report.pdf

        The AG’s report was too late for corrective legislative action, I imagine corrections will be introduced in 2025. As a side note, HY donates to lots of campaigns, bought a newspaper to promote his views. He was instrumental in writing fracking rules for a neighboring county. The story of one campaign he supported (also covered by NYT, WaPo, more):
        https://searchlightnm.org/who-backed-solomon-penas-campaign/

        The trial is ongoing.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Those two articles illustrate the depth of the legal and political teams that drive Trump and Project 2025’s efforts, and one way they recruit newbies for them. They are prepared for a longer fight this time, on a broader front, than they were in 2021.

      The articles also illustrate that it’s not just what’s in Project 2025 that counts, but the spirit that motivates it. They want more than they dared write down. They want a vastly different America. For them, it’s an existential fight. They’ve made it one for us, too. As with American class warfare, it does us no good if only one side fights it.

  8. Zinsky123 says:

    I have said from the git-go (actually, January 7th, 2021) that Steve Bannon and Roger Stone had to be integral to the planning of the coup. The Willard Hotel was the locus of all of these pernicious people (Rudy included) who had both the brains and balls to carry this nasty shit out. I knew when the DOJ penetrated the Willard Hotel communication bubble, that would be the end of Trump and his top minions. Trump, in real time, was directing this hideous assault on American democracy and justice demands he spend the rest of his pathetic life in prison. Thanks, as always, Dr. Wheeler, for your remarkable blog!

  9. JR_in_Mass says:

    I suppose that even if Bannon had flipped, he would still be referred to as “CC-#”, but I wonder why he is a “P” unlike other major participants at the Willard. He is probably cynical enough to sing.

    Bonus b.s. – What if Bannon was a Deep State operative all along, and going to prison is just part of his cover? (I know that’s ridiculous, but the thought is amusing.)

    • Peterr says:

      From Marcy’s post above:

      The reason why Rudy and the others have “CC” labels, designating them as co-conspirators, is because they did in the original indictment. Those labels were retained with the superseding indictment to minimize confusion; even with Jeffrey Clark (formerly CC4) removed, Chesebro and Epshteyn retained their old numbers, 5 and 6.

      Bannon didn’t even make it into the superseding indictment.

      • SteveBev says:

        Further to your point paras 7,9 of the superseding indictment refer respectively to ‘co-conspirators known and unknown’ and ‘the co-conspirators included the following…”

  10. Critter7 says:

    Another thing that caught my eye: Not only did Bannon know in advance that Trump would put Rudy in charge, Bannon had recommended it – or so he told Epshteyn. Another way to say it in light of Bannon being how he is and Epshteyn’s reveal: Bannon had pushed Trump to do it.

    As Smith’s team wrote it (p. 9) but with me filling in the names: When [Epshteyn] asked [Bannon] if [Stepien] was “gone too?”, [Bannon] replied that “[t]hey all report to [Rudy] and that [Bannon] had “made a recommendation directly that if [Rudy] was not in charge this thing is over[.] Trump is in to the end.”

    But we need to interpret that with an asterisk, given that Rudy thought he had been put in charge earlier. In his J6C deposition (p. 22), Rudy tells of going to see Trump on Nov. 4: “And
    then, at some point, he said — and I didn’t ask for this. He said, I want you to take over the campaign. I want you to go over there and I want you to take over the campaign. And he gave me the reasons why.” But Rudy did not act as if he had been put in charge until Trump’s November 14 announcement.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Of course, Trump’s early November 4 2020 a.m. declaration that “we did win this election” was inspired by Rudy’s (allegedly drunken) coaching on election night.

  11. Peterr says:

    Slightly OT:

    The willingness of Trump to believe whatever lies someone puts in front of him — like the election lies — continues.

    Following up on the posting of a fake Taylor Swift endorsement (which blew up on him bigly when Swift endorsed Harris right after the debate), now he is hyping a similarly fake Jamie Dimon endorsement. From the Guardian:

    Donald Trump’s social media post that showed a purported endorsement for the presidency from the JP Morgan chief executive, Jamie Dimon, among the most influential investment bankers on Wall Street, is false, a representative confirmed on Friday.

    The Truth Social post – what appears to be a screenshot of a tweet with a siren emoji and text claiming Dimon had endorsed Trump, with a photo of Dimon – appeared at 1.56pm ET on Friday, as Trump was flying to Augusta, Georgia, for a campaign event.

    But Dimon has not endorsed Trump or made any endorsements in the 2024 presidential race, according to a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson. And Dimon has not contributed any money to the Trump campaign or to Trump’s Democratic rival, Kamala Harris.

    Trump just can’t help himself, if someone makes him think people like him.

    I’m waiting for Trump to get fooled into posting a fake Joe Biden endorsement.

    • emptywheel says:

      I doubt he was fooled. But remember, too, there’s a new person running his SM accounts, in addition to Scavino, who has worse judgment about what to post.

      • Peterr says:

        Perhaps, but even after Trump was alerted to the false post, and the subsequent official denial by JPM, the post remains up.

        He may know it is false, and know that his staffer screwed up, but he still *wants* it to be true. He’s probably telling himself and his staff that the JPM board probably leaned on Dimon to deny it, because they are scared of losing business from Dems.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Hard to imagine unintentionally getting wrong an endorsement by so prominent an economic player. As with so many things about Trump, he seems to intentionally ie about these things for the buzz, and disregards corrections or fact checking, as do most of his followers.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          I highly recommend Steve Benen’s Ministry of Truth, which I have almost finished reading. While most here are likely familiar with the broad outlines and many details of the GOP gambits Benen covers, the book nonetheless provides an excellent refresher course–especially for those of us who’d like to have the most relevant facts at our mental fingertips.

          Two of my clinicians recently burst out during office visits with pro-Trump diatribes. One solicited my arguments, especially on “the economy.” I know a lot, but I wish I’d read this book before the impromptu debates.

          Luckily I have a followup next week.

    • Harry Eagar says:

      Who, I wonder, other than trump cares about a Dimon endorsement, or, if they do, thinks it a benefit? He was, after all, head of the largest bank as the financial system careened toward the 2008 collapse.

      • Rayne says:

        It’s not the number of voters Dimon’s endorsement might sway. It’s the amount of money certain donors might pitch into a campaign’s coffers this late in the election season.

        Only takes one or two key donors to make a difference in certain media markets.

    • synergies says:

      1st: as I’ve stated previously TFG’s entire con is too get himself & his photo in the news. Because of his “Apprentice” & Presidency familiarity. Billionaires own the news.
      2nd: There’s more than a few problems the Democratic Party needs to address in what is the campaign consultant con job. Like everyone I get tons of emails. I actually view a good deal of them. Once in a while there’s actually some enlightening info about a candidate.
      An example of what I’m trying to explain: Each end of the month is a reporting deadline for how much was raised for each candidate. The flood of emails, “We need to make this amount to cover our goals.” The very last day of September was huge. The candidates sent an image map of the US with blue circles in various sizes showing where & size of donations. “Oh, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You.” The next few days, with simple tower graphs of the much lower difference, “Oh My God, I’m so confused, why, why, why,” “Wah, wah, wah, wring my hands!”
      My point is simple. It’s the first of the month. People are paying their hefty rent. This type of constant campaign consultant bullshit, is to depress whoever they are representing because they make more $ in the problem. It’s typical James Carville terrible influence.
      One of the candidates who I really, really like was raised in super low income by a single mom.
      I can’t believe, “I’m so confused,” was run by him.
      IMO this is always why elections are close, by terrible design.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I never read e-mails from political consultants whose earthly remains were found by Howard Carter among the detritus of Tutankhamun’s tomb. He’s been at this for too long to do any good.

        • GV-San-Ya says:

          Carville has been coasting on “It’s the economy, stupid” fame for thirty freakin’ years. WHY is he still a thing???

        • synergies says:

          I bow. I’ll get to tech savvy someday. TY. At the least I learn new words & can follow intelligence sharing. Appreciated.

    • hebmdyskebm says:

      Ostensible Democrat Dimon has spent the last four years talking out of both sides of his mouth, playing nice with Trump (or the idea of another Trump term), and forecasting imminent recessions frequently enough to the point where I wouldn’t have been shocked if he actually did endorse Trump.

    • RitaRita says:

      Maybe Trump believes that even if Jamie Dimon hadn’t endorsed him, he should have because Trump is so great for business and just overall magnificent. The lying is justified as a way of getting what he is entitled to.

      The surprise for me in the Special Counsel’s brief was how involved Trump was in the various schemes. I had thought that, perhaps Trump just went along for the ride after being persuaded by Giuliani, Bannon, Chesebro, and Eastman. But the brief makes it clear that Trump was a very active participant from the allegation of rigging 5 months before the election all the way through to using the violence of Jan. 6th to push for delay in certification. He was apprised of what they were going to do, gave the ok and did what he needed to do to effectuate the schemes. Perhaps like the lie about Dimon’s endorsement, Trump thought he was entitled to a second term and would make it happen, regardless of the vote.

      Herschman plays an interesting role. He seems to be the Kushner voice of reason trying to talk Trump out of going out on the ledge and trying to prevent the “Star Wars Bar” from pushing Trump over.

      It is easy to think of Bannon as the devil sitting on Pinocchio’s left shoulder and Herschman as the angel sitting on the right shoulder. But that robs Trump of agency. Bannon and the rest told Trump what he wanted to hear but Trump had decided to do whatever was necessary regardless of the details.

      • dopefish says:

        Re: How involved Trump was in the various schemes.

        Remember the phone call where Trump asked Georgia’s Secretary of State to “find” him 11,780 more votes to flip the state? And threatened both him and his counsel with unspecified criminal penalties if they wouldn’t comply?

        That combined with his inaction on Jan.6—watching on TV for hours to see if his mob managed to stop the certification of electoral votes (and/or managed to lynch his Vice President)—convinced me at the time that Trump was neck-deep in all this scheming to keep him in office in spite of losing the election. His conduct since—refusing to acknowledge his loss, and praising sentenced Jan.6 rioters as “martyrs” for example, certainly did not make me think I might have misjudged him.

        Now we see what Jack Smith thinks he can prove: a lot of stuff I’d already seen or heard, that was already reported in various news stories over the last few years, plus a bunch of new things that would be shocking, except they follow so many previous revelations of the criminality of these fucking people that its pretty hard to be shocked by them anymore.

        I hope Smith nails Trump to the wall and TFG finishes out his years in prison. Along with many of his associates, its where he truly belongs.

  12. FL Resister says:

    More tragicomedy from Trump Administration’s reign of incompetence. So nice that photo and phone records exist of who was talking to whom among the high ranking absurdist characters devoted to a lost and erroneous cause packed into one-room at the infamous Willard Hotel.

      • Savage Librarian says:

        This WP article may be helpful in filling in some of the remaining blanks. Some people we have not thought too much about yet are:

        David Bossie, Pam Bondi, Johnny McEntee, Ric Grenell, Matt Schlapp, Sharron Angle, Monica Palmer, Jay Sekulow.

        But, the article may also help to clarify what many others were doing and when. Some are people we already know. It offers a point of view that may be helpful. One person that seems to have wielded quite a bit of power was Jenna Ellis. It surprised me.

        Here’s a quote from the article;

        “This account of one of the final chapters in Trump’s presidency is based on interviews with 32 senior administration officials, campaign aides and other advisers to the president, as well as other key figures in his legal fight, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details about private discussions and to candidly assess the situation.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-overturn/2020/11/28/34f45226-2f47-11eb-96c2-aac3f162215d_story.html

        “20 days of fantasy and failure: Inside Trump’s quest to overturn the election” – 11/28/20

        • RitaRita says:

          Now, in hindsight, that article seems Pollyannish.

          Trump had not given up his quest. Far from it. Trump was still benefitting from the media simultaneously underestimating him and treating him like a child prone to temper tantrums who could be coaxed into doing the right thing. They still thought that there were guardrails in place and that norms and the rule of law would prevail.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          RitaRita:

          The point of sharing this article was to remind us of other people we may have forgotten and to indicate when the “hostile takeover” and other events occurred. It was meant as a tool to help decipher the redactions.

          Fortunately there were guardrails that held, like the dozens of court cases Trump lost. And even though the transition was stalled, it had begun by the time the article was written.

          Obviously we know a lot more now than we did five years ago. But I could say it’s Pollyannish that so many people didn’t know about rampant white supremacism and fascism in the mid 90s.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          McEntee and Grenell, in this context, seem especially central. I kept trying to identify McEntee as I read Smith’s brief, but never felt sure.

          There’s also Navarro’s young aide who let the conspirators in on 19 December 2020.

          And Roger Stone.

  13. Obansgirl says:

    I live in a small coastal town in massachusetts. I hold signs for Harris Walz every weekend at the beach. I am stunned by the number of Trump people driving by giving the finger and yelling we love Trump. Never been like this here in 35 years.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      When I drive inland from New Haven into the newer wealthy suburbs-of-nowhere, I see Trump signs often. They are planted at street’s edge in what seems an intention to intimidate, especially the bloody-faced “Fight fight fight!” one.

      The latter impelled me to pull over somewhere else to check my phone map, despite the fact that I was very lost and clearly a stranger in a strange land indeed.

Comments are closed.