YAY! STEVE BANNON INDICTED by federal grand jury!!!

[BackAgain]

LOL!!!! nice try grouchooooooooooooooo....

it's a standing opinion of the court. know what that means? that means it hasn't changed. so when the sausage casing accepted the pardon - he also admitted guilt.


learn to think critically.

Also, I’m wondering if you are actually citing a long held “opinion” of the courts in the terms of precedent? Or are you making reference to side thoughts expressed in some legal opinions that are not actually part of the legal opinion? There is a concept known as obiter dicta. Normally, it’s just called “dicta.” It essentially refers to the non-precedential portion of legal decisions and rulings and opinions that aren’t expressed as a basis for the rulings.

Example: the court opinion says “the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of A and B to support a finding of C. Here, the proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports A. The proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports B. Also, the defendant is ugly, smells bad, dresses like a clown and has terrible taste in music. The court finds, based on the trial evidence that the jury verdict of guilty was legally proper. Conviction affirmed.”

The A and B part and the C conclusion were all necessary to the ruling. The musings about the defendant being ugly, smelling bad, etc., are all orbiter dicta. They have no value as precedent.

Furthermore, precedent can always be questioned. Plessy v. Ferguson was absolutely precedent at one point. But, overtime, it got questioned. And it ain’t precedent no more.

 

[playtime]

It is difficult to break it all down. But it wasn’t an attempted coup. That term has no applicability to that protest or the smallish component of the protest that behaved as a criminal mob.

right or wrong - the flying monkeys thought it was a coup. that's all that matters when they did what they did. it was their reason to break into the capital.

it is indeed possible that some set of the smallish criminal mob were “hunting down” legislators. I don’t know anyone who supports that.

25 secs in ...



& this dude:

hmmmm.... why bring ziplocks to a peaceful protest & capital tour?

Indeed, as I said, the actions of the relative few was criminal in nature and an affront to our system of republican government.

LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!

I don’t think you were arguing with me about Pence. But I’ll rephrase what my contention has been — and remains: The Vice President had a specific Constitutional role concerning the outcome of the election that day. What he was asked to do would have constituted a violation of his Oath od Office, as I see it. He was (in my view) completely correct to proceed AS he did. And I vehemently disagree with everyone who says he should be hanged. If that’s not clear enough, I flatly commend Vice President Prince’s official actions that day.

perhaps dan quale will take the stand & testify as to what pence was saying, thinking, etc.... re: the constitutionally mandated rule about certification.

 

[playtime]

No. It means that you place stock in One longtime espoused view that accepting a pardon somehow constitutes an admission of guilt. It doesn’t. In point of fact, accepting a pardon means you are allowing the system to return you to your pre conviction legal status — which includes a presumption of innocence.

gee. I wonder why a person who is innocent might want that? It’s a real poser, isn’t it? Such a tough question.

lol ...

 

[playtime]

No one has bothered to challenge it and the USSC doesn’t care?

 

[BackAgain]

not just 'some people' but also the SC.

U.S. Supreme Court​

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
Burdick v. United States

No. 471

Argued December 16, 1914

Decided January 25, 1915

236 U.S. 79



Syllabus

Acceptance, as well as delivery, of a pardon is essential to its validity; if rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, the court has no power to force it on him. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150.


There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

There is a distinction between amnesty and pardon; the former overlooks the offense, and is usually addressed to crimes against the sovereignty of the state and political offenses, the latter remits punishment and condones infractions of the peace of the state.

Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)

There is no duty of a pardoned person to accept a pardon. Good to know. That does NOT mean that accepting a pardon is the legal equivalent of admitting guilt. Of course a person can be concerned with that appearance. Therefore, the person is feee to assume that accepting the pardon will be taken as a tacit admission of guilt. That’s just a personal view of it. So what?

 

[BackAgain]

lol ...

Your “lol” is a cheap and ineffective form of ad hominem. I recognize it for what it is. Evidence that you are unable to cobble together a meaningful refutation.

 

[playtime]

Also, I’m wondering if you are actually citing a long held “opinion” of the courts in the terms of precedent? Or are you making reference to side thoughts expressed in some legal opinions that are not actually part of the legal opinion? There is a concept known as obiter dicta. Normally, it’s just called “dicta.” It essentially refers to the non-precedential portion of legal decisions and rulings and opinions that aren’t expressed as a basis for the rulings.

Example: the court opinion says “the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of A and B to support a finding of C. Here, the proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports A. The proof at trial properly and sufficiently supports B. Also, the defendant is ugly, smells bad, dresses like a clown and has terrible taste in music. The court finds, based on the trial evidence that the jury verdict of guilty was legally proper. Conviction affirmed.”

The A and B part and the C conclusion were all necessary to the ruling. The musings about the defendant being ugly, smelling bad, etc., are all orbiter dicta. They have no value as precedent.

Furthermore, precedent can always be questioned. Plessy v. Ferguson was absolutely precedent at one point. But, overtime, it got questioned. And it ain’t precedent no more.

that there opinion is standing. no other justice has ever argued it that i know of. if they have & it has been overturned in practice ... please provide a link from the SC indicating that.

don't ferget ol' sausage casing was CONvicted based on tangible evidence. not circumstantial ... but beyond a reasonable doubt.

d'oh!

 

[BackAgain]

that there opinion is standing. no other justice has ever argued it that i know of. if they have & it has been overturned in practice ... please provide a link from the SC indicating that.

don't ferget ol' sausage casing was CONvicted based on tangible evidence. not circumstantial ... but beyond a reasonable doubt.

d'oh!

 

[playtime]

There is no duty of a pardoned person to accept a pardon. Good to know. That does NOT mean that accepting a pardon is the legal equivalent of admitting guilt. Of course a person can be concerned with that appearance. Therefore, the person is feee to assume that accepting the pardon will be taken as a tacit admission of guilt. That’s just a personal view of it. So what?

it's the view of the court.

 

[playtime]

Your “lol” is a cheap and ineffective form of ad hominem. I recognize it for what it is. Evidence that you are unable to cobble together a meaningful refutation.

no..... it means you are humping for trump, & it's amusing.

lol....

 

[basquebromance]

Bannon lasted 3 weeks in the WH. that's almost 3 Scaramucci's!

he only got to manage Trump's campaign because Roger Ailes refused to do so

 

[BackAgain]

What?

I may be confused. It happens. But I thought that Mr. Bannon was pardoned before he was prosecuted. And that involves zero proof of guilt at all. But even if we assume that there was sufficient evidence that might have amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s not the same thing as a verdict. Mere speculation.

Speaking of which, which case overrules Plessy v. Ferguson? <<cue the Jeopardy music>>

 

[BackAgain]

no..... it means you are humping for trump, & it's amusing.

lol....

Ah. So it was mere as hominem drivel. Not unexpected. Your game is lame.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Why haven't Bannon and Meadows been arrested, there are folks who are arrested for skipping Jury Duty. Another example of that white male privilege.

 

[playtime]

Ah. So it was mere as hominem drivel. Not unexpected. Your game is lame.

says the dude who started in on lame name calling............................

 

[BackAgain]

it's the view of the court.

So? Is it orbiter dicta? Do you know? I doubt the distinction matters to you.

gets me back to the question: cite the case that overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[BackAgain]

says the dude who started in on lame name calling............................

So. You admit that you have only ad hominem? Elevate your game and try again when you have any.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why wasn't it done before and why is it being done now? I'll answer for you. Because the people in power are fascists and do not give a shit about the rule of law or our Constitution.

Rule of law? Like compliance with a lawful subpoena?

wake up, dope.

 

[BackAgain]

right or wrong - the flying monkeys thought it was a coup. that's all that matters when they did what they did. it was their reason to break into the capital.





25 secs in ...



& this dude:

View attachment 564358

hmmmm.... why bring ziplocks to a peaceful protest & capital tour?





LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!


perhaps dan quale will take the stand & testify as to what pence was saying, thinking, etc.... re: the constitutionally mandated rule about certification.

I don’t know what the criminals at the incident thought it was. But if they thought it was a coup or even an attempted coup, they’d have to be seriously brain damaged. Besides. Who gives a fuck what they imagined it was. Fairly small group of chuckleheads.

what former VP Quayle might say about what Pence was thinking is so completely irrelevant that it sinks even you to a new low.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That is bullshit. First, you have no proof. Second, America heard what Trump said. Third, you have had lousy luck making lies into truth. This will be no different.

An embarrassing show while the borders are open, criminals walk free, and inflation is killing the Middle Class.

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?