LAWYER, JUDGE ARGUE OVER BANNON BORDER CASE
Chaotic opening to hearing as firebrand faces fraud charges.
Alawyer for Steve Bannon said at a court hearing on Thursday that he and Bannon have had “a complete breakdown in communication,” in a rote proceeding that was quickly overtaken by a fiery argument between the lawyer and a New York judge. At the opening of the session in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, Mr Bannon’s lawyer, David Schoen, said that he wanted to withdraw from the case, saying that Mr Bannon, an associate of former president Donald Trump, was entitled to the representation of his choice, with no caveats.
“With all due respect, I believe you’re 100% wrong,” said the judge, Juan Merchan, responding to the claim that Mr Bannon had unqualified freedom in his choice of lawyer. If Mr Bannon’s search for a lawyer were indulged completely, it could delay the case indefinitely.
The judge’s response offered the first hint that the hearing would be suffused with the chaos that often surrounds Mr Bannon, a right-wing pundit, political operator and podcaster who recently suggested that Mr Trump be chosen as speaker of the House.
A heated back-and-forth ensued between Mr Schoen and the judge, conducted at a volume that carried throughout the high-ceilinged downtown courtroom.
In September, Mr Bannon was charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office with defrauding contributors to an organisation that sought to help construct a wall along the southern border.
Mr Bannon had been charged federally in 2020 with similar conduct but was pardoned by Mr Trump before he left the White House. A trial is set to take place in the fall.
Mr Bannon had been scheduled to appear last month, but the hearing was postponed, in part because his lawyers said that they had reached an impasse with their client.
On Thursday, Mr Schoen commenced his explanation of those circumstances in a roundabout manner: “If a defendant and his lawyers have a complete breakdown of communication … ” Mr Schoen began. Before he could finish, Judge Merchan interrupted, asking him to speak plainly.
Mr Schoen obliged. “There has been a direct breakdown in communication,” he said. “Mr Bannon and his lawyers don’t communicate about this case directly. We only communicate through a third-party attorney.” Mr Schoen said that they could not agree on a defence strategy or much of anything else.
The show of frustration was unusual from Judge Merchan, who for the most part seemed unruffled throughout the trial of Mr Trump’s company, which he also oversaw.
After the hearing, Mr Schoen said that he had “really hit it off with the judge today.”
He said that while he was no longer communicating with Mr Bannon on the wall case, he was still on good terms with him otherwise and was in fact representing him in another matter. It was unclear why this particular case had become impossible for them to discuss.
Mr Bannon, for his part, restricted his comments to the Brazilian election, which he claimed, with no evidence, was “stolen.”
The judge granted Mr Bannon until Feb 28 to find a new lawyer. He said it was “disingenuous” to say that the search for a new lawyer would not delay the case. He asked Mr Bannon whether he understood; Mr Bannon, speaking for the only time during the hearing, said that he did.
Once a new lawyer was found, Judge Merchan told Mr Schoen, “you never need to come back.”