"The defendant decided he was above the law, and he didn’t have to follow the government’s orders like his fellow citizens. So this whole case is about a guy who just refused to show up? Yes, it is that simple."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn argued to the jury, quoted in "Prosecutor: Steve Bannon thumbed his nose at the law/Outside court, the defendant denounced the House Jan. 6 committee and the case against him" (WaPo).

Lawyers for Bannon dismissed Vaughn’s characterization, saying their client was still negotiating with the House Jan. 6 committee when he was accused of a crime. “No one ignored the subpoena,” said defense lawyer M. Evan Corcoran. “It’s called negotiation, it’s called accommodation.”... 

After Tuesday’s trial testimony ended, Bannon erupted outside the courthouse, blasting the head of the Jan. 6 committee, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and repeating false claims that Trump, not Biden, was the true winner of the 2020 election.“They’re charging me with a crime?” Bannon fumed. “Have the guts and the courage to show up here and say exactly why it’s a crime.” 

It is highly unusual for a defendant to speak publicly outside court in the middle of his own trial, let alone criticize decisions about which witnesses appear. 

Bannon also predicted that Republicans would win back the House in November and create a new Jan. 6 committee that will function far differently than the existing panel, which he derided as a “show trial.” ...

Here's the description of how Bannon looked in court: "Wearing one dark button-down shirt over another, a black suit jacket and a black mask, Bannon, 68, leaned forward at the defense table and listened intently." He's "pugilistic," we're told.

The defense attorney urged jurors to question the motivation behind testimony or evidence presented by prosecutors. “My single request for you is to think about it and ask yourself: Is this piece of evidence affected by politics?” he said....

The two misdemeanor contempt charges Bannon faces are each punishable by at least 30 days and up to one year in jail.

But criminal trials over contempt of Congress are exceedingly rare, and serving time in jail for a conviction is even rarer. It has been about seven decades since someone went to jail for that offense — a seminal case in U.S. political and legal history involving the First Amendment, the Cold War and political efforts to publicly shame suspected communists. 

In 1947, 10 movie directors and screenwriters refused to answer questions from the House Un-American Activities Committee about their alleged ties to communists. The Hollywood Ten, as they were known, were convicted, and the Supreme Court ultimately rejected their appeals, sending them to jail in the early 1950s, in what many historians now consider one of the worst instances of red-baiting during the Cold War era.

In 1957, the Supreme Court sought to rein in what it had come to view as the excesses of the red-hunting days, ruling in favor of an Illinois labor official, John Watkins, who agreed to answer some questions about people he knew who were communists, but refused to answer questions about people whose communist associations or activities were in the past.

Through the Watkins case and other decisions, the high court discouraged the Justice Department from pursuing more contempt of Congress cases.....