Jump to content

Steve Bannon Indicted

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

The Royal We

The Royal We 3072

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Phony charges like the ones he was convicted of and pardoned for?

These fuckheads don't have to worry about pesky things like "facts" or "shame."  They've got their buddies Cucker and Sean to convince everyone it was all a witch hunt - convictions and pardons be damned. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 862
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ted Lange
Ted Lange
elfenix
elfenix
C-Man
C-Man

“Looks like Yoda with AIDS” lol

Posted Images

Underdog

Underdog 28848

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

JFC:

"Just days after being swatted three different times by deranged thugs from New York City inspired by the Biden Administration to assassinate me by police, the Soros-backed DA has now decided to pursue phony charges against me 60 days before the midterm election because WarRoom is the major source of the MAGA grassroots movement," Bannon said in a statement. 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So, please @surlylawdogs, help me out here:

 

He was pardoned by DOtArd for basically the same crime he is now charged with in state court. If you accept a pardon, aren't you admitting to the crime? If so, can that fact be used against you in the state trial?

 

 

pardon isn't an admission of guilt.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

the pardon may not be, but the acceptance sure is.

no.  here is some recent discussion of it.

 

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110580824.pdf

some quotes:

 

All this confirms that not every acceptance of a pardon constitutes a confession of guilt and the government’s broad reading of the Burdick dictum simply cannot be correct.

 

Neither the district court below nor the government on appeal identify a single case in which a federal court has applied Burdick to hold that acceptance of a presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt and a consequential waiver of habeas rights.

 

We do not suggest that the President could not have chosen to condition Lorance’s pardon on a confession of guilt, only that he chose not to do so here, instead granting a pardon that did not purport to address Lorance’s innocence or guilt. We reject the district court’s suggestion that every presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt unless expressly grounded on a presidential finding of innocence. Although acceptance of a pardon may imply a public perception of guilt, it does not have the legal effect of doing so where the pardon is not expressly conditioned on such a confession.

 

In sum, we reject the government’s reading of the dicta in Burdick to mean that accepting a pardon had the legal effect of a confession of guilt in this case where Lorance has maintained his innocence and unjust conviction throughout all proceedings and based his pardon petition on those grounds, and where the pardon did not purport to address Lorance’s innocence or guilt and did not condition acceptance on a confession of guilt. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred by relying upon Burdick’s dictum to find that Lorance’s pardon acceptance had the legal effect of confessing his guilt.

 

 

(etc)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31653

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

no.  here is some recent discussion of it.

 

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110580824.pdf

some quotes:

 

All this confirms that not every acceptance of a pardon constitutes a confession of guilt and the government’s broad reading of the Burdick dictum simply cannot be correct.

 

Neither the district court below nor the government on appeal identify a single case in which a federal court has applied Burdick to hold that acceptance of a presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt and a consequential waiver of habeas rights.

 

We do not suggest that the President could not have chosen to condition Lorance’s pardon on a confession of guilt, only that he chose not to do so here, instead granting a pardon that did not purport to address Lorance’s innocence or guilt. We reject the district court’s suggestion that every presidential pardon constitutes a legal confession of guilt unless expressly grounded on a presidential finding of innocence. Although acceptance of a pardon may imply a public perception of guilt, it does not have the legal effect of doing so where the pardon is not expressly conditioned on such a confession.

 

In sum, we reject the government’s reading of the dicta in Burdick to mean that accepting a pardon had the legal effect of a confession of guilt in this case where Lorance has maintained his innocence and unjust conviction throughout all proceedings and based his pardon petition on those grounds, and where the pardon did not purport to address Lorance’s innocence or guilt and did not condition acceptance on a confession of guilt. Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred by relying upon Burdick’s dictum to find that Lorance’s pardon acceptance had the legal effect of confessing his guilt.

 

 

(etc)

Yeah, I had thought that statement in the Burdick case was a little casual as a basis to hold that acceptance of any pardon confesses guilt.

The holding in Burdick was that the pardoned may accept or decline a pardon, for whatever reason, and noted that a pardonee may wish to go to trial and win acquittal rather than accept a pardon and any imputation of guilt that may come along with it.

Burdick is a really odd case.  A newspaper editor refused to divulge names of sources and faced various criminal charges, including contempt of court.  After he refused to give up names during a grand jury hearing citing the 5th, the government whipped up a pardon from Wilson and handed it to him and said "now you gotta testify."  Burdick noped out, and refused to accept the pardon.  The issue was whether he could refuse a pardon.

Supremes could still change it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31653

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Edited to add that the comments included a claim that federal sentences of less than a year must be served in full, with no reduced time for good behavior.

I am sure Surly can clarify.

Correct.  Felons are often sentenced to 366 days for "minor" crimes just so they can get "good time."  Google "sentenced to 366 days" and you'll see it's very common.

Misdememeanors cannot be more than one year, so no good time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13536

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/17/2022 at 8:39 PM, tx 3 putt said:

 

The GOP has fully realized that gerrymandering by itself will not keep them in power. While Dems use gerrymandering as well, the GOP has taken it to another level to pick and choose their voters in an attempt to keep them in power. 

Now they need to go further by picking and choosing which votes to count. Use any dirty trick possible to disrupt the vote, voters, process and counting to ensure only their votes are fully counted. 

 

As for his sentencing, I'm sure that he will be given ample opportunity to appeal before having to serve. In other words, he will hold this off for 2+ years hoping to get Trump or another friendly face in the WH for a pardon.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31653

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

It's bullshit he's free to roam through the appeals process.  That's how it happens w/ common folk, right?

Generally speaking, if a person is not detained pretrial, they are not detained pending appeal.

The federal system does tend to "prefer" pretrial detention, but less so for "white collar" type crimes.

Most "bets are off" here because this is a misdemeanor prosecution, which is exceedingly rare in the federal system outside of 1/6 defendants.

But, generally speaking, if you are in federal court on a misdemeanor, you probably won't get pretrial detention and therefore you would be free pending appeal, also.

There is also the fact that his sentence would likely be completed before an appeal.

This is a rather uniquely white person crime, though.  Eric Holder notwithstanding (he was not subject to prosecution).

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77676

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The GOP has fully realized that gerrymandering by itself will not keep them in power. While Dems use gerrymandering as well, the GOP has taken it to another level to pick and choose their voters in an attempt to keep them in power. 

Now they need to go further by picking and choosing which votes to count. Use any dirty trick possible to disrupt the vote, voters, process and counting to ensure only their votes are fully counted. 

 

As for his sentencing, I'm sure that he will be given ample opportunity to appeal before having to serve. In other words, he will hold this off for 2+ years hoping to get Trump or another friendly face in the WH for a pardon.


gerrymandering helps with the house, but not the White House, state wide races and senate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31653

Posted
Posted
Just now, Gil Bang said:

So, are there any requirements for the appeal?  Like, "OK Motherfucker, you're out pending appeal, but if the appeal isn't filed in 7 days, you're remanded"?  

Otherwise, he's got an incentive to delay delay delay

No. Appeals courts don't generally tolerate many extensions of time.  He has 14 days to file a notice of appeal, the clerk of the court will have to prepare a record, which includes the trial transcript and that can take a while, then the court of appeals sets a briefing schedule with generally 30 days for each side to file their briefs, then it sits for a couple of months before oral argument, then it sits another couple, four, six months for a decision.

His main point of appeal will be the "advice of counsel" argument, which is based on a DC Circuit case or cases, which is where his appeal will go.  I don't think he gets anywhere with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...