Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Steve Bannon just testified for the government at Roger Stone’s trial

Here’s what he said.

Former White House senior counselor to President Donald Trump Steve Bannon speaks to members of the media as he leaves court after he testified at the Roger Stone trial November 8, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Former White House senior counselor to President Donald Trump Steve Bannon speaks to members of the media as he leaves court after he testified at the Roger Stone trial November 8, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Former White House senior counselor to President Donald Trump Steve Bannon speaks to members of the media as he leaves court after he testified at the Roger Stone trial November 8, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Andrew Prokop
Andrew Prokop is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He’s worked at Vox since the site’s launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker’s Washington, DC, bureau.

As the trial of Roger Stone stretched into its fourth day on Friday, prosecutors called their biggest name yet to the witness stand: Steve Bannon.

The former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO stressed that he was appearing under a subpoena, rather than voluntarily. “I have been compelled to testify,” he said.

But he proceeded to explain that, in 2016, Stone suggested to him several times “that he [Stone] had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.”

All this relates to the government investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Part of that interference, special counsel Robert Mueller says, was through Russians’ hacking of Democrats’ emails — and the provision of those emails to WikiLeaks, for publication.

Both Mueller and congressional investigators attempted to get to the bottom of what happened with the hack-and-leak, and whether any Trump advisers were involved. As part of that, they scrutinized Roger Stone — and now he’s on trial facing charges of obstruction and lying to the House Intelligence Committee on the topic of WikiLeaks.

Why prosecutors wanted Bannon’s testimony

Bannon’s testimony was important to prosecutors for two main reasons. First, one of the false statements charges against Stone stems from his having told the committee that he did not share information about WikiLeaks with the Trump campaign.

Now, Bannon testified that the Trump campaign didn’t really have an official access point to WikiLeaks — but that the closest thing to that would have been Roger Stone.

Stone, he said, had been making comments both publicly and privately suggesting that he had some sort of a relationship with Assange, WikiLeaks’s founder. So when Bannon wanted to know why Assange hadn’t released new damaging documents by early October, Bannon emailed Stone asking what was up. He did so, he testified, because Stone was “the guy” who had told him he “knew WikiLeaks and knew Assange.”

WikiLeaks did have a major release starting on October 7 — they began posting the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in daily batches. And around that time, Bannon testified, he “believed” I “heard that Roger Stone was involved in the release of those emails.”

The second reason Bannon’s testimony is important to prosecutors is that, in his telling, Stone began privately claiming that he had a “relationship” with WikiLeaks and Assange quite early — perhaps all the way back in spring 2016, he said. (This was before Bannon had joined the Trump campaign.)

The timeline matters because several of the charges against Stone allege that he engaged in a cover-up — that he falsely told Congress that all his information about WikiLeaks came from one source, radio host and comedian Randy Credico.

But the government claims that Credico could not have been Stone’s initial WikiLeaks connection, because he had no contact with the group until late August 2016, and even that was only to do a radio interview with Assange. (Credico claimed Stone used him as a “patsy.”)

So Bannon’s testimony that Stone claimed to have a WikiLeaks relationship much earlier will be used by the government to argue that Stone lied to cover up the true nature of his contacts with WikiLeaks.

What the trial has mostly avoided is evaluating whether Stone in fact had good information on what WikiLeaks was planning. Defense lawyer Robert Buschel asked Bannon whether, today, he believes Stone had made accurate predictions about WikiLeaks’s plans — but prosecutors objected to the line of questioning, and the judge sustained their objection.

The trial will resume Tuesday, and at some point next week, another former Trump campaign aide — Rick Gates, who became a cooperating witness for the Mueller investigation — is expected to testify as well.

See More:

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters