Looks like the Bannon conviction will be REVERSED!!!

[Jarod]

Who “bleached” the server.

 

[Jarod]

She absolutely violated the Federal Records Act for starters. That requires government officials--like her--to conduct all official business on a government computer system. She didn't, that's a felony.
She then erased over 30,000 e-mails from her server before anyone could look at them. That is another violation of that act and a felony. We know many of these were official documents required to be archived because copies from other people who either sent or received them are available. 18 USC 1519 18 USC 2701
She had hundreds (not counting up to 10% of the total being low level classified e-mails) of highly classified e-mails on that server. That's a felony 18 USC 1924
She then used a bleach bit program to make the server drives unreadable. That is covering up the above, yet another felony. 18 USC 1001 18 USC 1505
She was violating the Freedom of Information act and actively sought to do so by using that private server, another felony.
Her server was hacked multiple times by domestic and foreign agents, and she didn't report it. Another felony. 18 USC 1905

That's enough on its own to keep her in jail for several lifetimes. So, I don't "think" she committed felonies, I know she did.

You believe 18 USC 1905 criminalizes being the victim of theft?

 

[Jarod]

She absolutely violated the Federal Records Act for starters. That requires government officials--like her--to conduct all official business on a government computer system. She didn't, that's a felony.
She then erased over 30,000 e-mails from her server before anyone could look at them. That is another violation of that act and a felony. We know many of these were official documents required to be archived because copies from other people who either sent or received them are available. 18 USC 1519 18 USC 2701
She had hundreds (not counting up to 10% of the total being low level classified e-mails) of highly classified e-mails on that server. That's a felony 18 USC 1924
She then used a bleach bit program to make the server drives unreadable. That is covering up the above, yet another felony. 18 USC 1001 18 USC 1505
She was violating the Freedom of Information act and actively sought to do so by using that private server, another felony.
Her server was hacked multiple times by domestic and foreign agents, and she didn't report it. Another felony. 18 USC 1905

That's enough on its own to keep her in jail for several lifetimes. So, I don't "think" she committed felonies, I know she did.

Not a single one of these allegations is based in fact, dumbshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

She absolutely violated the Federal Records Act for starters. That requires government officials--like her--to conduct all official business on a government computer system. She didn't, that's a felony.
She then erased over 30,000 e-mails from her server before anyone could look at them. That is another violation of that act and a felony. We know many of these were official documents required to be archived because copies from other people who either sent or received them are available. 18 USC 1519 18 USC 2701
She had hundreds (not counting up to 10% of the total being low level classified e-mails) of highly classified e-mails on that server. That's a felony 18 USC 1924
She then used a bleach bit program to make the server drives unreadable. That is covering up the above, yet another felony. 18 USC 1001 18 USC 1505
She was violating the Freedom of Information act and actively sought to do so by using that private server, another felony.
Her server was hacked multiple times by domestic and foreign agents, and she didn't report it. Another felony. 18 USC 1905

That's enough on its own to keep her in jail for several lifetimes. So, I don't "think" she committed felonies, I know she did.

ROFLMAO.. So then Jared, Ivanka, Donald J Trump are all guilty of a felony? The Federal Records Act doesn't require all official business to be conducted on a government computer. So to start with you make a ridiculous claim of something being a crime that is in no way a crime. Secondly, the Federal Records Act to my knowledge has no criminal penalties in it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44

The law specifically states that she only had to turn over official emails and she is the one that determines which are official and which are personal. 18 USC 1519 18 USC 2701 in no way relates to her server unless you are arguing that she illegally hacked into her own server.

She had hundreds (not counting up to 10% of the total being low level classified e-mails) of highly classified e-mails on that server. That's a felony 18 USC 1924

How do you even post this bullshit with a straight face? She had over 60,000 emails on her server. She turned over roughly 30,000 to the State Department as official business and then deleted the roughly 30,000 that were personal. Of the emails, 2,935 were retroactively found to contain classified information. Only 110 of the emails contained classified information at the time they were sent. 18 USC 1924 requires that she knew the documents were classified at the time she had them. Since none of them were clearly marked classified and the majority of them were only deemed classified after she no longer had them, it would be impossible to convict her based on the facts and the law.

She then used a bleach bit program to make the server drives unreadable. That is covering up the above, yet another felony. 18 USC 1001 18 USC 1505

So then you are arguing that anytime the government decommissions a server and wipes the hard drives they are committing a felony? That is utter nonsense. Destroying a decommissioned server is REQUIRED.

She was violating the Freedom of Information act and actively sought to do so by using that private server, another felony.

While it is entirely possible she was trying to get around the FOIA, it isn't a felony under any law unless you can prove she knowingly withheld documents from the government. (Funny thing is that is what Trump seems to have done, knowingly withheld government documents even when they subpoenaed them.)

Her server was hacked multiple times by domestic and foreign agents, and she didn't report it. Another felony. 18 USC 1905

There is no evidence of her server being hacked. Being the victim of a hack is not a crime.

The only thing you seem to know is that you don't know shit about facts or the law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/...xecutive-privilege-at-least-not-meaningfully/

Indeed, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a former president can assert executive privilege. It did so in a sequel to the Watergate-tapes case, Nixon v. General Services Administration (1977), in which … [t]he court wrote: “We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them.”

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It is you that doesn't grasp reality here. Comey said there was enough evidence to refer the case but he didn't think the Hildabeast violated the law. That wasn't his decision to make. He refers the case and the US attorney general's office decides on whether the law was violated, which in the Hildabeast's case it was repeatedly. Her defense was she didn't knowingly break the law, same as Bannon.

A couple of things. Comey did not say there was enough evidence to refer the case for prosecution. Clinton made errors and did things that were not right but it didn't rise to a criminal case.

we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-rele...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

It wasn't Hillary's defense, it was the FBI that thought she didn't knowingly commit acts that would break the law. The requirement isn't that she knowingly break the law but that she knowingly commit an act that breaks the law. One doesn't have to know about the law to break the law. The law requires knowingly mishandling classified information which means she has to know the information is classified. I would love for you to try to convince a jury that discussing a story in the NYTimes is knowingly mishandling classified information.

Bannon was convicted because he knowingly refused to comply with a subpoena. He knew the subpoena existed. He received the subpoena. He said publicly he was refusing to comply with it.

Wrong. One was held to a higher, much higher, standard than the other and all on the basis of politics.

Aside from that the Hildabeast did brag about her server, and even getting off...

What bullshit on your part. Both were held to the exact same standard. The law requires proving intent. There is no way to prove intent on the part of Hillary. Prosecutors were able to prove intent in the case of Bannon.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/...xecutive-privilege-at-least-not-meaningfully/

Indeed, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a former president can assert executive privilege. It did so in a sequel to the Watergate-tapes case, Nixon v. General Services Administration (1977), in which … [t]he court wrote: “We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them.”

You really need to read past the first couple of paragraphs..

This assertion, however, is incorrect. And it reflects a basic misconception shared by many lawyers and policymakers about that seminal case, Nixon v. GSA.

The article goes on to give 3 reasons why the part you quoted is not a valid argument.

 

[Jarod]

https://www.justsecurity.org/78904/...xecutive-privilege-at-least-not-meaningfully/

Indeed, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a former president can assert executive privilege. It did so in a sequel to the Watergate-tapes case, Nixon v. General Services Administration (1977), in which … [t]he court wrote: “We reject the argument that only an incumbent President may assert such claims, and hold that appellant, as a former president, may also be heard to assert them.”

Any fucking person can assert it, that does not mean it is valid.

 

[Jarod]

You really need to read past the first couple of paragraphs..


The article goes on to give 3 reasons why the part you quoted is not a valid argument.

That is what constitutes debate now days for Trumppers, misquoting things then running away.

 

[Concart]

Totally fucking stupid.

 

[Into the Night]

What is interesting is the argument that Bannon is making in appeal where he is trying to argue that just doing the crime isn't enough. He is arguing that he also had to intend to do the crime while knowing it was illegal in order to be convicted.

His defense violated what you are arguing in the case of Florida voters, Yakuda. Shouldn't you be calling Bannon an idiot or something?

The problem Bannon has is even though he willingly violated the subpoena and was convicted of willingly violating the subpoena, he is now trying to argue that willingly must also include a firm belief that what you are doing is illegal. A rather stupid argument that won't survive the appeals process since Bannon knew full well that the courts had already ruled that a former President can't use executive privilege.

The House does not have authority to issue a subpoena nor compel attendance. See the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Trump Trump was not the executive when he instructed Bannon to refuse to testify. The supreme court has held that the privilege remains with the executive not the past executive. Biden was well aware of this yet refused to testify anyway. Trump has no executive privilege. It’s also the argument Trump is trying to make with the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago.

Irrelevant. The House does not have power of subpoena. That cannot compel attendance. See the Constitution of the United States. Pay particular attention also to the 4th and 5th amendments as well as Article I.

 

[Into the Night]

Untrue, he was instructed by several courts that the subpoena was valid. Getting bad legal advice from someone like Trump is not appealable.

The subpoena is not valid. The house has no authority to subpoena.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Irrelevant. The House does not have power of subpoena. That cannot compel attendance. See the Constitution of the United States. Pay particular attention also to the 4th and 5th amendments as well as Article I.

Are you arguing that Congress has no power to pass laws?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

Are you arguing that the founders that wrote the US Constitution didn't understand the Constitution they wrote?

While the contempt power was exercised both by the English Parliament25 and by the American
colonial assemblies,26 Congress’s first assertion of its contempt authority occurred in 1795,
shortly after the ratification of the Constitution.
...
According to one
commentator, who noted that many of the Members of the early Congress were also members of
the Constitutional Convention and, thus, fully aware of the legislative practices of the time, it was
“substantially agreed that the grant of the legislative power to Congress carried with it by
implication the power to punish for contempt.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

 

[archives]

Media crowed over bannon's conviction but you can bet they will be silent when it is reversed.

Judge only postponed serving the sentence, not the conviction, and hard to believe that Bannon's defense, "Bannon relied on advice from his lawyer that he could not testify because of executive privilege. Thus, Bannon thought he was acting lawfully," would stand up anywhere

 

[archives]

Irrelevant. The House does not have power of subpoena. That cannot compel attendance. See the Constitution of the United States. Pay particular attention also to the 4th and 5th amendments as well as Article I.

Usual "pidgin" bullshit, going back to State Legislatures in Colonial days it has been precedented law, and, was even recently confirmed by the Trump Court no less in 2020 (Trump v. Mazars)

 

[Jarod]

Irrelevant. The House does not have power of subpoena. That cannot compel attendance. See the Constitution of the United States. Pay particular attention also to the 4th and 5th amendments as well as Article I.

Untrue

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

What is interesting is the argument that Bannon is making in appeal where he is trying to argue that just doing the crime isn't enough. He is arguing that he also had to intend to do the crime while knowing it was illegal in order to be convicted.

His defense violated what you are arguing in the case of Florida voters, Yakuda. Shouldn't you be calling Bannon an idiot or something?

The problem Bannon has is even though he willingly violated the subpoena and was convicted of willingly violating the subpoena, he is now trying to argue that willingly must also include a firm belief that what you are doing is illegal. A rather stupid argument that won't survive the appeals process since Bannon knew full well that the courts had already ruled that a former President can't use executive privilege.

My gawd, you are stupid. I mean even for a tranny.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You really need to read past the first couple of paragraphs..


The article goes on to give 3 reasons why the part you quoted is not a valid argument.

those 'reasons' are opinion only, not case law relevance or fact.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is what constitutes debate now days for Trumppers, misquoting things then running away.

this is the attention span of liberals these days......rewrite history to confirm your own world and ignore reality