Steve Bannon’s Bas-Relief Confession that Trump Told Him to Deny Discussing Sanction Relief

After a week of writing about Mike Flynn and more Mike Flynn, I’m finally getting around to the transcripts the House Intelligence Committee wrote last week. A bunch of frothy right wingers have pointed to the transcripts as PROOF OF NO COLLUSION, which is hilarious. I’ve barely begun reviewing them, but some glaring holes in the investigation include:

  • The key players — Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, but also Rick Gates — did not testify
  • Two witnesses (Michael Cohen and Roger Stone) were convicted for the lies they told to the committee and a third (Erik Prince) is reportedly under investigation, even if Billy Barr’s DOJ doesn’t prosecute Trump flunkies
  • Multiple witnesses (Michael Caputo, Steve Bannon, and Jared Kushner, for starters) denied knowing people or having evidence their Mueller materials show they had

Republicans mostly asked each witness, “did you collude?” which predictably elicited the “no” answers the frothers are now pointing to as PROOF. Democrats spent most of their time trying to get recalcitrant witnesses to answer questions they refused to answer rather than trying to corner them into something useful.

The investigation was a shit-show.

The craziest thing (thus far, anyway), is Steve Bannon’s two appearances. Bannon testified in January 2018 and invoked White House guidance to refuse to answer questions from both the transition and post-inauguration periods, periods others had addressed. He also claimed any communications of interest would have been turned over by the campaign, thereby hiding emails he had with Roger Stone using his personal email where they explicitly discussed Julian Assange.

When Bannon went back a month later, having consulted with Devin Nunes in the interim and after Nunes appears to have shared a transcript of Bannon’s first appearance with the White House, he provided the committee a bunch of questions he would answer — all “no” answers.

Here’s how just some of those questions parroted back (for the second time in the hearing) looked:

MR. CONAWAY: After November 8th, 2016, did you meet with Ambassador Kislyak?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: On March 27, 2017, The New York Times reported that in mid-December of 2016 Kushner met with Sergei Gorkov of the VEB. Were you aware of this meeting?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Did you attend a December 2016 meeting with Kushner that Kushner had with Gorkov?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Did Mr. Prince have any role in the current administration?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Was there any discussion on January 27th, 2017, at the White House regarding Mr. Papadopoulos, who was contacted by the FBI that day?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Has Mr. Papadopoulos had any contact with anyone at the White House concerning the fact that the FBI had approached him?

MR. BANNON: Not to my knowledge.

MR. CONAWAY: Was the fact that the FBI approached Mr. Papadopoulos on January 27th communicated to President Trump?

MR. BANNON: Not to my knowledge.

MR. CONAWAY: Did Mr. Trump ever discuss with you any conversations between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks after the election?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Did you ever meet with Devin Nunes about the Russia investigation?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: While at the White House, were you ever instructed to take any action that you believe could hinder the Russian investigation in any way?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Were you ever given any instruction at the White House that you felt might amount to an effort to obstruct justice?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Did you have any conversations with Director Comey after the election about whether he would remain the head of the FBI?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. CONAWAY: Once you were part of the administration, were you a part of any discussions about how to approach the Russian, vis-à-vis the sanctions, whether to do away with them or in any way minimize the effects of the sanctions?

MR. BANNON: No.

Here’s how Adam Schiff got Bannon to admit that he was literally reading from a script the White House gave him (remember that Bannon’s lawyer, William Burck, also represented White House Counsel Don McGahn).

MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Bannon, who wrote these questions?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: My understanding, Mr. Schiff, is that these came from the transcript.

MR. SCHIFF: No, no, no. The questions that Mr. Conaway just asked you the questions. I asked you earlier if you had been authorized by the White House to answer all in the negative. Who wrote these questions?

MR. BANNON: Same answer.

MR. SCHIFF: What’s the same answer? Who wrote the questions?

MR. BANNON: My understanding is they came from the transcript.

MR. SCHIFF: What transcript are you talking about?

MR. BANNON: This transcript of my first interview.

[snip]

MR. SCHIFF: Well, how were they produced? How do you know that the White House has authorized you to answer them? [Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: My counsel informed me that these were the questions the White House authorized me to answer.

MR. SCHIFF: But you didn’t write these questions?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. SCHIFF: And your counsel didn’t write these questions?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. SCHIFF: So these questions were supplied to you by the White House?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: As far as I know.

The thing is, most of these are now recognizably misdirection from some known damning detail. For example, Bannon did not attend the November 30, 2016 meeting with Sergey Kislyak at Trump Tower, but he was invited. Bannon’s lack of knowledge of Jared Kushner’s December meeting with Sergei Gorkov doesn’t make the meeting itself less damning — arguably, it suggests Kushner kept it on a close hold — and it doesn’t rule out Bannon being involved in a meeting with Gorkov sometime after that. Bannon’s narrow denial that Erik Prince had a role in the administration distracts from Prince’s role as a go-between with Russia during the transition, something Bannon was personally involved with (and covered up by deleting his relevant text messages). There was a discussion among senior campaign officials of the link that WikiLeaks sent Don Jr in September 2016, but it was during the election, not after it. Bannon didn’t have conversations with Jim Comey about firing him, but he had a ton of conversations about firing Comey, eight times on May 3 and 4, 2017 alone. Even the questions about obstruction of justice are consistent with explicit requests that Bannon obstruct, but that took place somewhere else, like Mar-a-Lago or Bedminster (and it’s notable that Bannon’s initial testimony dramatically backed off some of the claims Bannon made to Michael Wolff that had just been published in Fire and Fury).

As Adam Schiff begins to figure out what happened, he asks questions that make it clear that Bannon did not meet — in person — with Nunes, but did speak to him on the phone.

MR. SCHIFF: Now, I see there’s a question on here, did you ever meet with Devin Nunes about the Russia investigation, and you’ve answered that “no.” But you’ve also answered, when my colleague asked you, that you have discussed — you had discussions with Mr. Nunes and you refused to answer the question about whether it was about the Russian investigation. Is that correct?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: However I answered, it’s in the transcript.

MR. SCHIFF: Let me just ask you again. Did you ever meet with Devin Nunes about the Russian investigation?

MR. BANNON: No.

MR. SCHIFF: Did you ever discuss the Russia investigation with Devin Nunes?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: That’s not a question I’m authorized to answer.

Even before that, Schiff cops on to Bannon’s denial about something — whether George Papadopoulos alerted the White House after he was first questioned about the FBI — that Bannon knows nothing about.

MR. SCHIFF: So one of the questions that you were supplied by the White House was, has Mr. Papadopoulos had any contact with anyone at the White House concerning the fact that he had been — that the FBI had approached him? How do you know the answer to that, Mr. Bannon?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: Can you just ask the question again?

MR. SCHIFF: Yes. One of the questions that the White House gave you to answer to our committee was, has Mr. Papadopoulos had any contact with anyone at the White House concerning the fact that the FBI had approached him?

MR. BANNON: I think I said, “Not to my knowledge.”

MR. SCHIFF: So you really did don’t know, do you?

MR. BANNON: That’s — not to my knowledge.

MR. SCHIFF: Why did the White House propose a question to you that you couldn’t answer within your knowledge?

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. BANNON: You have to ask the White House that.

In Papadopoulos’ Congressional testimony (which took place in October 2018, so six months after Bannon’s second HPSCI interview), the coffee boy would admit that he emailed Marc Kasowitz, who was then Trump’s personal attorney, sometime after his FBI interview.

Q And you didn’t talk to anyone from the Trump organization about that interview with the FBI?

A I don’t think I did, no.

Q So you were interviewed again by the FBI —

A I can’t remember if I reached out to Marc Kasowitz about either that or my subpoena from the Senate. And I emailed him and I said, Look, would you be interested in representing me? I think that’s what happened. But I don’t — I can’t remember exactly why I emailed him, but I think I emailed Marc Kasowitz’ firm sometimes after the interview, but I don’t remember if he ever responded or anything like that.

This post writes up what we know about Papadopoulos’ testimony.

This makes it clear, then, that the script Bannon was given was a ham-handed attempt to get a bunch of denials in the record, denials of things that actually did happen.

Among the questions the White House included was one designed to get him to deny he had discussed eliminating sanctions on Russia.

MR. CONAWAY: Once you were part of the administration, were you a part of any discussions about how to approach the Russian, vis-à-vis the sanctions, whether to do away with them or in any way minimize the effects of the sanctions?

MR. BANNON: No.

Of course, this “no” answer only says Bannon didn’t continue to discuss ending sanctions on Russia after inauguration, but he did beforehand.

There is testimony on the Mueller Report about Bannon’s personal involvement in discussions about the Russian sanctions imposed on December 28, 2016. But Bannon — in testimony on February 12, 2018, so three days before he read this script before HPSCI — claimed to have forgotten those conversations.

Shortly thereafter, McFarland and Bannon discussed the sanctions. 1235 According to McFarland, Bannon remarked that the sanctions would hurt their ability to have good relations with Russia, and that Russian escalation would make things more difficult. 1236 McFarland believed she told Bannon that Flynn was scheduled to talk to Kislyak later that night. 1237

[snip]

In addition to her conversations with Bannon and Reince Priebus, at 4:43 p.m., McFarland sent an email to Transition Team members about the sanctions, informing the group that “Gen [F]lynn is talking to russian ambassador this evening.” 1251 Less than an hour later, McFarland briefed President-Elect Trump. Bannon, Priebus, Sean Spicer, and other Transition Team members were present. 1252

[snip]

Flynn recalled discussing the sanctions with Bannon the next day and that Bannon appeared to know about Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak. 1274 Bannon, for his part, recalled meeting with Flynn that day, but said that he did not remember discussing sanctions with him. 1275

[snip]

Flynn recalled discussing the sanctions issue with incoming Administration official Stephen Bannon the next day. 100 Flynn said that Bannon appeared to know about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, and he and Bannon agreed that they had “stopped the train on Russia’s response” to the sanctions. 101

1275 Bannon 2/12/18 302, at 9.

101 Flynn 1/19/18 302, at 4-5. Bannon recalled meeting with Flynn that day, but said he did not remember discussing sanctions with him. Bannon 2/12/18 302, at 9.

The White House gave Bannon a script, telling him to deny his involvement in reaching out to Russia on sanctions. And the specific form of the question — which asks about doing away with them — suggests those conversations on December 28, 2016 went further than the Mueller Report describes.

Which explains why Trump is trying to ensure Flynn avoids prison time for hiding that detail.

image_print
26 replies
  1. Gigi says:

    And over and over trump and company are compromised because Putin knows the truth behind all of this and can reveal it easily, unless… yes, unless trump follows his commands. It’s disgusting. And a betrayal to America.

  2. CapeCodFisher says:

    AG Wheeler. Kind of reminds me of a time when Teddy Roosevelt got himself elected to the NY legislature late 1800s and almost single handedly wiped out govt corruption there.

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      Too bad it didn’t last. NY is probably not as corrupt as Florida, but aside from Kazakhstan, no government is.

      • Rugger9 says:

        Which is why the fawning over Andrew Cuomo as some sort of superhero D is ridiculous, because he orchestrated the handover of the NYS legislature to the GOP for years by having a small group of Ds form their own caucus until they were voted out last cycle. So, he’s more of an opportunist that is trading on his father Mario’s good name. Governor Andrew Cuomo was cornered into being more effective in the COVID-19 response than DJT but that was a low bar. Comparison to Inslee of WA or Newsom of CA would be a better test.

        • P J Evans says:

          Newsom does what the San Joaquin Valley water districts and the oil producers want. That’s his corruption (along with being bought by the prison guards, but that’s pretty normal for CA governors).

        • Rugger9 says:

          Don’t forget Western States Petroleum as well, but at least Newsom wouldn’t sell off the legislature like Andrew Cuomo did.

        • P J Evans says:

          I did say “oil producers”.
          Newsom lost my vote last year when he veto’d the bill that would have written the state environmental standards into law – and wouldn’t explain why.

  3. madwand says:

    MR. CONAWAY: Once you were part of the administration, were you a part of any discussions about how to approach the Russian, vis-à-vis the sanctions, whether to do away with them or in any way minimize the effects of the sanctions?

    MR. BANNON: No.

    I find this hard to believe, since he was involved during the transition and was a senior advisor during the administration. Just IMHO

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Mr. Conaway would not have needed Bill Clinton’s advice about how to ask a question that permits an insider to repeat a litany of “No” answers, in order to frame events for the defense. You can listen in or speak through others, for example, and not consider yourself “part of” any discussions. Mr. Bannon’s replies are not definitive or reliable answers.

    • emptywheel says:

      The question was designed to exclude the transition. And he DID discuss how to approach Russia about sanctions during the transition.

  4. Fenix says:

    “Democrats spent most of their time trying to get recalcitrant witnesses to answer questions they refused to answer rather than trying to corner them into something useful.”

    This is so frustrating.

  5. Savage Librarian says:

    JarDon Gate

    JarDon Gate,
    Wrought iron fate,
    The case that’s never closed.

    Spook the market,
    Spook the target,
    Spook the Holy Ghost.

    In like Flynn,
    Pretend to win,
    Mask what was supposed.

    Toss a Stone
    to Prince alone:
    A Bann on who will boast.

    Watch for Mitch
    to scratch the itch
    of butts that he likes most.

    Super-duper
    Barr abuser
    worms into its host.

    Investigate,
    Subjugate,
    Bet on who will coast.

    Spook the market,
    Spook the target,
    Spook the Holy Ghost.

    JarDon Gate,
    Wrought iron fate,
    The case that’s never closed.

  6. Jenny says:

    Marcy thank you very much. Your post helps me to understand all the moving parts and characters in this play.

    • Jenny says:

      “I’ve got a cure for mental health issue. Spank your children more.”
      Steve Bannon

      Speaks volumes about his character.

      • Tracy Lynn says:

        I never really understood if he meant the mental health of children, parents, or families in general by that remark.

        • Vicks says:

          Slapping people around is traditionally a way self- loathing wannabe alpha white males exert their “power”
          It’s a lot of stress to know that you suck as a human, and believe me these people are feeling it.
          After food and water their next “need” is to soothe the conflict that is raging inside so they reach to the ridiculous to justify their behavior to them selves and others.
          They have a few drinks, and get enraged at a world who doesn’t give a shit that their mama’s told them they are special.
          They physically beat the snot out of a woman or child or verbally humiliate someone in their lives to reassure themselves they still have power.
          And the self loathing cycle continues, leaving future generations of hurt and twisted individuals in its wake.

        • Jenny says:

          Vicks, agree. Past trauma by the abuser does not justify abuse to another.

          Abuse (physical, sexual, neglect and emotional) has been from generation to generation in my family. Years ago, I spoke up supporting my teenage nephew who was physically assaulted by a 45 year old adult in the family. Of course, the abuser blamed me stating I was “breaking up the family.” He verbally attacked me for days. Typical behavior from an abuser who loathes the self and takes it out on others. I suggested he get therapy.

          “Controllers, abusers and manipulative people don’t question themselves. They don’t ask themselves if the problem is them. They always say the problem is someone else.”

  7. John Paul Jones says:

    You say:

    “And the specific form of the question — which asks about doing away with them — suggests those conversations on December 28, 2016 went further than the Mueller Report describes.”

    Just a guess on my part, but it seems to me quite likely that that specific item is in the Flynn/Kislyak transcriptions, and that’s what got everyone who saw the transcripts so excited. In turn, that would seem to imply that Flynn wasn’t freelancing, but was acting under instructions. Not sure whether that makes Flynn less culpable if he was following instructions from the incoming President.

    Like I say, just a guess.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Judge Sullivan had asked for the transcripts earlier (EW had done a post on this last week) but was told by the Government at the time that these were not needed to make the case against Flynn. However, I think only the unredacted transcripts could help Judge Sullivan sort out who did what to whom.

      It’s important to remember that everyone (McCord, etc.) thought everything was routine between FLynn and Kislyak until they read the transcripts so whatever is in there is a whopper and we simply cannot trust AG Barr to “summarize” them.

  8. Eureka says:

    On the one hand (and encore une fois), thank goodness they are so dumb as to fossilize their theory- of- mind leaks.

    There is some peace in glimpsing the truth which we already know to be horrible.

    On the other hand, the escalating fixer-attempts are just bluntly smashing our democracy into some freaky distorted wreck.

  9. Zinsky says:

    Marcy – great analysis and reporting. Thank you so much. I wish I knew a way to get your analysis of the unreported parts of the Muller report and the associated lies and misdeeds of the early Trump administration, into the mainstream media. This is so valuable, but 98% of America is completely ignorant of the truths about this skeezy, dishonest bunch of grifters. Trump’s bullying, bravado and endless repetition of simple-minded narratives has hornswaggled the vast majority of Americans (even many Democrats), into believing this lying, dishonest criminal did nothing wrong. Tragic.

  10. Rugger9 says:

    OT, but I see DJT jr deciding to smear Biden with a pedophile rap, and doubling down when called on it. However, it was DJT who was pals with Epstein and by his own admission crashed through the teenage pageant dressing rooms while the girls were dressing (and at least one accuser was very underage in the 20+ women stack of accusers against DJT).

    So applying the rule that this WH projects its own crimes onto others one wonders whether the shoes to drop have to do with the Epstein associations, or maybe it has to do with Mr. and Mrs. Pompeo getting investigated by the State Department IG (who was just fired by DJT).

    • Jenny says:

      The President of the United States.
      “I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful, I just start kissing them. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything … grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Comments are closed.