I've seen some legal opinions that the pardon doesn't matter that much since he could apparently be tried on a state level anyways.

You should recite the facts correctly. Supposedly, Bannon represented to the public that 100% of donated funds were going to build the wall. In fact, prosecuters allege that ‘hundreds of thousands’ were diverted to pay Banon’s personal bills. That’s out of 25 million raised.

What part of what I said was incorrect?

> Bannon and another defendant, Brian Kolfage, allegedly promised donors that the campaign, which raised more than $25 million, was "a volunteer organization" and that "100% of the funds raised ... will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose," according to the indictment.

> Instead, according to prosecutors, Bannon, through a nonprofit under his control, allegedly used more than $1 million from We Build the Wall to "secretly" pay Kolfage and cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bannon's personal expenses.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics/steve-bannon-pardone...

According to the unsealed indictment, bannon received $1m through a non-profit, which he used to transfer to pay for unrelated shit using fake invoices.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1306611...

Oh yeah, he only stole a million dollars of people's money, not the full 25 million. It's so unfair to pursue him!

He still stole and he's still a criminal. What are you trying to prove here

The earlier comment implied that Bannon stole all the monies raised, when in fact, where talking about what - 10%? - diverted? There's no question that 100% of the monies did not go to the construction of the wall. From a practical standpoint, a non-profit that manages to run with a 10% overhead is very unusual. Most non-profits spend most of their money (70%+) on marketing and administration.