Steve Bannon, former chief strategist to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty to defrauding donors who contributed to the “We Build the Wall” campaign, a fundraising effort designed to finance Trump’s border wall.
Bannon admitted to a felony charge of “scheme to defraud” but, in exchange for the guilty plea, he will avoid prison time. Instead, he was sentenced to a three-year conditional discharge, which includes restrictions barring him from holding any charitable positions in New York or using donor information from the campaign. Prosecutors opted not to require restitution since co-defendants in a related federal case had already returned millions to victims.
Bannon’s guilty plea marks his second criminal conviction, following a prior sentence of four months in federal prison for contempt of Congress. The charges related to the “We Build the Wall” campaign, which raised over $15 million.
Bannon and others misled donors by falsely promising that none of the funds would go toward paying the salary of Brian Kolfage, the president of the nonprofit. However, prosecutors revealed that Bannon secretly funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Kolfage through third-party entities. Financial records showed Kolfage was paid a secret salary, including a $100,000 upfront payment and monthly payments of about $20,000.
The campaign had publicly claimed that all donations would be used to privately construct the border wall, with the central message being that Kolfage would not take any compensation. Instead, much of the money was diverted for personal gain.
While Bannon’s plea deal has been hailed by some as a victory for holding him accountable, it has also sparked concerns about a two-tier justice system. Political figures like Bannon appear to avoid significant penalties, even after admitting to criminal conduct. This raises questions about whether the legal system applies justice equally, especially for those with political influence.
After the hearing, Bannon took the opportunity to call for investigations into political figures involved in legal actions against Trump, further fueling the perception that political allegiances may impact legal outcomes.
