Looks like the Bannon conviction will be REVERSED!!!

[Text Drivers are Killers]

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

https://thegreggjarrett.com/steve-b...ds-to-get-his-j-6-contempt-conviction-tossed/

oct 24 2022 Even U.S. district court judge Carl Nichols recognizes that Bannon’s contempt conviction is likely to get tossed out, which is why he took the extraordinary step of issuing a stay of sentence pending appeal.

When Bannon was subpoenaed by the J-6 Committee, Trump’s lawyer sent him a letter stating that the president invoked executive privilege and therefore directed him not to testify. Trump holds the privilege, not Bannon. Under law, Bannon cannot waive it or violate it. So, on advice of his own counsel, Bannon declined to testify. It was the correct advice.

But at trial, Judge Nichols applied the wrong standard on “willful” defiance of a subpoena. He relied on an outdated 61-year-old DC circuit court case (Licavoli v. U.S., 1961) that was based on a Supreme Court decision that was later repudiated by the high court and overturned. The correct standard, as the Supreme Court has since enunciated, is that prosecutors must show that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful. But if a defendant believes his response to the subpoena is lawful, then he cannot be convicted.

 

[Yakuda]

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

This should be interesting

 

[dukkha]

but at trial, Judge Nichols applied the wrong standard on “willful” defiance of a subpoena. He relied on an outdated 61-year-old DC circuit court case (Licavoli v. U.S., 1961) that was based on a Supreme Court decision that was later repudiated by the high court and overturned. The correct standard, as the Supreme Court has since enunciated, is that prosecutors must show that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful. But if a defendant believes his response to the subpoena is lawful, then he cannot be convicted.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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

ROFLMAO...
What a crock. The judge didn't recognize that the conviction would be overruled. He simply put the sentence on hold pending appeal. That is not uncommon if a convicted defendant says they will appeal.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This should be interesting

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.

 

[Jarod]

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

Your prediction is noted

 

[Jarod]

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

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.

 

[Jarod]

but at trial, Judge Nichols applied the wrong standard on “willful” defiance of a subpoena. He relied on an outdated 61-year-old DC circuit court case (Licavoli v. U.S., 1961) that was based on a Supreme Court decision that was later repudiated by the high court and overturned. The correct standard, as the Supreme Court has since enunciated, is that prosecutors must show that the defendant knew his actions were unlawful. But if a defendant believes his response to the subpoena is lawful, then he cannot be convicted.

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

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

That argument worked perfectly well when you were defending the Hildabeast and her felonious use of a private e-mail server... At least you could apply your standards consistently rather than by political preference.

 

[Jarod]

That argument worked perfectly well when you were defending the Hildabeast and her felonious use of a private e-mail server... At least you could apply your standards consistently rather than by political preference.

What crime do you think HRC committed?

 

[Jarod]

That argument worked perfectly well when you were defending the Hildabeast and her felonious use of a private e-mail server... At least you could apply your standards consistently rather than by political preference.

What crime do you think HRC committed?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

That argument worked perfectly well when you were defending the Hildabeast and her felonious use of a private e-mail server... At least you could apply your standards consistently rather than by political preference.

It seems you don't know what argument is being used by Bannon and what argument was used to not indict Hillary. Bannon was convicted for willingly violating the law by defying a subpoena. Hillary was not charged because Comey felt it was impossible to prove Hillary willingly violated any law.

Both were held to the same standard under the law. The problem Bannon has is he bragged to the public about how he was willingly not turning over documents or sitting for a deposition. That made it easy to convict him based on intent. If Hillary had bragged about how she set up her server in order to put classified documents on it then she would have easily been convicted as well.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

B-B-B-B-But Hillawy?

Fucking hilarious!

 

[Jarod]

What crime do they think HRC committed?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What crime do you think HRC committed?

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.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It seems you don't know what argument is being used by Bannon and what argument was used to not indict Hillary. Bannon was convicted for willingly violating the law by defying a subpoena. Hillary was not charged because Comey felt it was impossible to prove Hillary willingly violated any law.

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.

Both were held to the same standard under the law. The problem Bannon has is he bragged to the public about how he was willingly not turning over documents or sitting for a deposition. That made it easy to convict him based on intent. If Hillary had bragged about how she set up her server in order to put classified documents on it then she would have easily been convicted as well.

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...

Fact check: Hillary Clinton’s email brag

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...19/fact-check-hillary-clinton-email/31998177/

Firm That Wiped Hillary’s Server Brags: We ‘Stifled Investigation Of Hillary Clinton’

https://thefederalist.com/2016/08/2...-brags-stifled-investigation-hillary-clinton/

Hacker brags Hillary server was ‘completely unsecured’

https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/hillary-hacker-brags-server-was-completely-unsecured/

Hillary Clinton claims she had 'zero' classified emails on server as she attacks Trump, despite 2018 IG report

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hi...mails-server-she-attacks-trump-2018-ig-report

 

[LurchAddams]

ROFLMAO...
What a crock. The judge didn't recognize that the conviction would be overruled. He simply put the sentence on hold pending appeal. That is not uncommon if a convicted defendant says they will appeal.

MAGA party pooper <wink>

 

[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.

So what records you you believe she destroyed?

 

[LurchAddams]

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.

I find it interesting is that trump supporters' brains are like "etch-a-sketches". Remember how many times the story changed about Stormy Daniels, then the Trump Tower meeting, then the theft of secret documents? The twumptards buy each one and totally forget about the former lie.

It's quite the phenomenon.

 

[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.

Where does 18 USC 1924 say documents can’t be on a server? Who put them on a server?