NEW YORK—After a short hearing in a state courtroom in lower Manhattan, Judge April Neubauer decided to postpone former Trump adviser Steven Bannon’s trial, originally set to begin on Dec. 9, until February 2025.
After hearing oral arguments from both government and defense lawyers in the New York City courtroom, the judge decided that more time was needed for hearings on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence.
The judge said that jury selection would take place in February at the earliest, and she directly asked Bannon, who was not there in person but attended the hearing remotely via a screen in the courtroom, whether he understood that he has to be present in the courtroom on Feb. 25, 2025.
“Yes, your honor,” Bannon replied.
He has pled not guilty to charges including conspiracy and money laundering in the case.
The decision was made after Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Levinson presented a diagram to the court and attempted to show the workings of an alleged elaborate scheme involving a GoFundMe site established to raise money for building a section of border wall.
Levinson argued in court that the illicit nature of the scheme was clear to Bannon from the beginning and that Bannon even asked in an email regarding Kolfage’s plans, “Isn’t this a scam?”
The prosecutor also quoted Bannon saying in an email, “You can’t build a wall for this much money” and that poor Americans should not part with their money for something so impracticable.
Levinson said that did not stop Bannon from willingly taking part and even using his personal finances to form an advisory committee to assist with the supposed border wall funding initiative.
Levinson also argued that Bannon helped to hide the fact that Kolfage was profiting from donations channeled through We Build the Wall.
“What changed his mind was his belief that he could make more money from his organization, he was convinced he could use publicity from the [Trump] campaign and a mailing list he'd generated to raise millions of dollars,” Levinson said.
Government and defense lawyers argued at length over the admissibility of financial records showing that parties involved with We Build the Wall had amassed considerable credit card debt. The prosecution said that presenting such records in court would not prejudice the jury.
Bannon’s defense lawyer, John Carman, argued that jurors examining records of debts to American Express and numerous credit card payments over an extended period might question the legitimacy and legality of the transactions, making the introduction of such records prejudicial.
Carman said that records of credit card payments by We Build the Wall to American Express and other credit card companies were immaterial.
“Are they inflammatory? Probably not. They’re being presented in an effort to be inflammatory,” Carman said.
The parties involved in the border wall plan had a fairly standard business arrangement, he said.
“It was an agreement of payment for services,” Carman said, adding that Levinson’s presentation should have made it clear that there was nothing unlawful about the payments in question.
“In the end, introducing credit card bills to a jury in a case like this, what does it do? What are they going to be thinking? ‘That’s a big Amex bill, I wonder if these are all legitimate expenses,’” he said.
