• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Steve Bannon Indicted

E-freakin-gads!
I just saw some fresh video of him talking, he's at least twice the man he used to be!
We're talking gravitational field generating mass here!
Like, he's a King Sized unmade bed now!
 
Mike! said:
E-freakin-gads!
I just saw some fresh video of him talking, he's at least twice the man he used to be!
We're talking gravitational field generating mass here!
Like, he's a King Sized unmade bed now human pustule!
Click to expand...

FIFY.
 
Mike! said:
E-freakin-gads!
I just saw some fresh video of him talking, he's at least twice the man he used to be!
We're talking gravitational field generating mass here!
Like, he's a King Sized unmade bed now!
Click to expand...

4 months in prison will probably help with that a bit. The food isn't great from what I hear.
 
Don't anybody hold your breathe.
Bannon is expected to seek a stay of the judge’s order, which could delay his surrender date. “I’ve got great lawyers, and we’re going to go all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to,” Bannon told reporters outside the courthouse. He added: “There’s not a prison built or jail built that will ever shut me up.” Associated Press news link
Click to expand...

There’s not a prison or jail that will ever shut him up? No, the only thing that ever shut him up was a subpoena from Congress.

:rolleyes:
 
It's weird how "lying gets you jail time" tends to lower the volume on right-wing talking heads.
 
newyorkguy said:
Don't anybody hold your breathe.


There’s not a prison or jail that will ever shut him up? No, the only thing that ever shut him up was a subpoena from Congress.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

i don't think any of these guys have great lawyers
 
Appeals in criminal matters are generally skewed pretty heavily in favor of the original conviction. Once you lose the first round of appeals in federal court, the argument, "My conviction raises serious constitutional questions," doesn't hold much water. And while it's proper to say that today's Supreme Court might swoop in to save him, they didn't do that for Peter Navarro's conviction on similar charges. I don't see them doing so for Bannon.
 
JayUtah said:
Appeals in criminal matters are generally skewed pretty heavily in favor of the original conviction. Once you lose the first round of appeals in federal court, the argument, "My conviction raises serious constitutional questions," doesn't hold much water. And while it's proper to say that today's Supreme Court might swoop in to save him, they didn't do that for Peter Navarro's conviction on similar charges. I don't see them doing so for Bannon.
Click to expand...

What are the criteria for escalating any conviction to the Supreme Court (which seems to be threatened quite often)? I mean, why can't the middle-management businessman do that for say, cheating on his taxes?
 
alfaniner said:
What are the criteria for escalating any conviction to the Supreme Court (which seems to be threatened quite often)? I mean, why can't the middle-management businessman do that for say, cheating on his taxes?
Click to expand...

He absolutely can. Anyone can petition the next higher court of appeals to review their case. It's up to the court to decide which appeals they will hear.

All your hypothetical businessman has to do is convince the court of appeals that there's a legitimate question of whether he was treated unlawfully (unconstitutionally, at the highest level).
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
that poor horse
Click to expand...

It would have to be this one.
171666339af0c7e1.jpg
 
"Steve, for your own protection, we're putting you in solitary. Again."
 
alfaniner said:
What are the criteria for escalating any conviction to the Supreme Court (which seems to be threatened quite often)? I mean, why can't the middle-management businessman do that for say, cheating on his taxes?
Click to expand...

As already alluded to, any criteria the Supreme Court deems worthy of consideration.

In Article III courts, you have an appeal as of right to the circuit. That means every appeal must be heard by a panel of the circuit court justices. A hearing en banc does not occur as of right. A rehearing en banc does not occur as of right. The appellant must petition the circuit court of appeals for en banc treatment.

Then the matter is ripe to make a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike other such petitions, the petition to the Supreme Court must very succinctly identify why the petitioner believes the Court should be interested—a difference in opinion among the circuits, or a novel matter for the Constitution.

Cheating on taxes is a complicated example because that is actually first adjudicated in an administrative (Article II) court. Those matters may eventually find their way into the federal judiciary, but only if they raise some novel question.

As regards the spirit of the example, someone convicted at the trial level in an Article III court may certainly try to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, but will fail. As the legislation makes plain in the function of the Article III "inferior courts," the matter is not ripe for that appeal. Only attorneys admitted to practice before the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court are authorized to file petitions for writs of certiorari with the court. They are expected to mind the gates diligently, and that's how the ripeness is enforced.

A criminal conviction that has exhausted its appeals from the trial court to the circuit court of appeals may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court—and should do so if the case presents some novel legal principle. Bannon claims he acted in good faith to decline the subpoena because he said he had been told by his lawyer that President Trump intended to invoke executive privilege. Licavoli v. United States 294 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir. 1961) ruled that neither advice of counsel nor good faith is a defense to defaulting on a Congressional subpoena. This is the basis of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection of Bannon's appeal. Removing a stay of judgment pending appeal is straightforward when that happens.

But in Bannon's case, the Question Presented could read, "Did the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals err in finding that good-faith reliance upon the advice of counsel was not a defense to defaulting on a subpoena as criminalized in 2 U.S.C. § 192?" And if the U.S. Supreme Court were so inclined, it could overturn Licavoli.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom