Trump Ally Bannon Must Surrender to Prison by July 1 to Start 4-Month Sentence

[Bradskii]

The president needs some degree of immunity if anyone does...

He was asked for everything back on many ocassions. If he'd handed them back then there'd be no problem. But he lied and he made efforts to hide some of the material. This is not in question.

 

[wing2000]

Trump was president which is a high elected office. The FBI are not elected. It seems like the president should have access to classified information more so than unelected spooks. I believe there are other examples of that. Biden was a congressman when he had classified documents. I am really not a fan of government secrecy anyway, I think it’s horrible if you ask me so I am not impressed by any of that regardless.

These secret agencies have also committed numerous crimes much worse than having documents were lives where destroyed etc. I regard many of them as the criminals and they have lied constantly. When I hear people say no one is above the law, it seems like a bit of a joke because the intelligence agencies get away with murder.

The president needs some degree of immunity if anyone does and if the intelligence agencies and military are allowed to operate the way they do, otherwise an infinite amount of frivolous lawsuits can be hurled at the president for everything and anything just to gum up the works which is what we have been seeing

The law that applies to the president is impeachment. That’s the way the constitution was written. That’s the law that we have. It may not be perfect but it was all thought out and worked out by the founders

The topic here is Steve Bannon. He has no immunity.

 

[wing2000]

Bannon's replacement gets metaphorically medieval on her enemies.

View attachment 351003

"heads on pikes" she writes, and adds "metaphorically" with an emoj. Really looking forward to her jail house visits with Mr Bannon.

 

[Richard T]

It's not failure to prosecute when there is insufficient reason to prosecute.

Well, your random anecdote is certainly convincing.

It s fine if you like Navarro in prison, arrested at the airport, chained in leg shackles and treated like a hardened criminal while others walk. Prosecutorial discretion is quite a power, it is not just the law that is considered, or the probability of the conviction. Too often it is based on discrimination, ideology or simple revenge. As to hard data, cases like Trump's are one of a kind. The appeals process will sort out the issues of law. If you think that the case was not politically motivated and the law applied properly that is fine. However, if the case does harm and in the end the law was misapplied, then I hope you examine your reasoning. I too look at my discernment all the time, and back it up with at least some research. It does not take a genius to know the current legal system is not fair.

What data we have on persecutorial discretion do often show:
that blacks get prosecuted more. Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders: Implications for Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice and Reentry Policy and Programming
Data on prosecutorial conduct itself is incomplete. https://www.urban.org/sites/default...ing_data_for_prosecutorial_decisionmaking.pdf

"Data can Be manipulated": How prosecutors' attitudes toward racial disparities and data-informed decision-making diverge

This is the online version of the article. To access a print version with page numbers for citation and reference purposes, select "Download" to the right and then choose "Formatted PDF."

www.qualitativecriminology.com

Insufficient reason to prosecute is exactly why the Federal government did not charge Trump for the potential Federal Election Interference. NY did prosecute, but can NY try someone for a Federal election? We will sure find out soon enough.

 

[JustOneWay]

Too often it is based on discrimination, ideology or simple revenge.

Or a just punishment for breaking the law.

 

[christian-surfer]

He was asked for everything back on many ocassions. If he'd handed them back then there'd be no problem. But he lied and he made efforts to hide some of the material. This is not in question.

It doesn't matter, the president is. the highest elected official and has no accountability to unelected criminal intelligence spooks who lie more than anyone and have no accountability.

 

[Richard T]

Excellent. You should have contacted Trumps lawyers: 'Here's a great defence...other people might have got away with other offences. Therefore Trump is innocent!'

Do you work in the law? You could make a fortune with that concept.

Excellent. You should have contacted Trumps lawyers: 'Here's a great defence...other people might have got away with other offences. Therefore Trump is innocent!'

Do you work in the law? You could make a fortune with that concept.

It is not about a defense, it is about justice. If a crime is committed one just hope the law applies equally. Often that is not the case. Trump will have his appeals. What would be ironic is that if his conviction is set aside, many will argue the same points that I have been making here, that the courts are basically too ideological. (Among other things).

 

[JustOneWay]

It doesn't matter, the president is. the highest elected official and has no accountability to unelected criminal intelligence spooks who lie more than anyone and have no accountability.

In other words, he is the KING. We already know this is what the rightists want.

 

[christian-surfer]

In other words, he is the KING. We already know this is what the rightists want.

no, he is the president .. the president can be impeached by congress. That's how the system works. That is the remedy. The congress does insider trading, a very egregious unethical practice. The FBI, CIA, and police are allowed to lie. Lying is only a crime or a problem when the powers that be want it to be a crime.

 

[JustOneWay]

no, he is the president .. the president can be impeached by congress. That's how the system works. That is the remedy. The congress does insider trading, a very egregious unethical practice. The FBI, CIA, and police are allowed to lie. Lying is only a crime or a problem when the powers that be want it to be a crime.

He is a King above the law. Congress no longer has the power to override the king.

Congress makes the laws, including the laws to do insider trading for them. All lawful....

All police are allowed to lie. Do you want to de-fund the police?

When Trump is crowned, friend Bannon's record will be expunged and those who imprisoned him will be investigated and punished.

 

[NxNW]

It doesn't matter, the president is. the highest elected official and has no accountability to unelected criminal intelligence spooks who lie more than anyone and have no accountability.

Your ungrammatical sentence aside, Trump was not the president after leaving office.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"heads on pikes" she writes, and adds "metaphorically" with an emoj. Really looking forward to her jail house visits with Mr Bannon.

Hopefully he comes out of Landsberg a reformed man.

 

[Yttrium]

Trump was president which is a high elected office. The FBI are not elected. It seems like the president should have access to classified information more so than unelected spooks. I believe there are other examples of that. Biden was a congressman when he had classified documents. I am really not a fan of government secrecy anyway, I think it’s horrible if you ask me so I am not impressed by any of that regardless.

Trump took the documents with him when he left the presidency. He was a former president. He went back to being a private citizen. Acts that he commits as a private citizen, like refusing to return classified documents, do not have presidential immunity.

You're stretching way too hard to find an equivalency. It's not there.

 

[christian-surfer]

Trump took the documents with him when he left the presidency. He was a former president. He went back to being a private citizen. Acts that he commits as a private citizen, like refusing to return classified documents, do not have presidential immunity.

You're stretching way too hard to find an equivalency. It's not there.

If you can prosecute presidents when they leave office for what they did as president it's a pretty useless immunity. A president has the authority to declassify documents so there are very broad powers

 

[JustOneWay]

If you can prosecute presidents when they leave office for what they did as president it's a pretty useless immunity. A president has the authority to declassify documents so there are very broad powers

You miss the point. Trump did not declassify the stolen classified documents before he left office. After he left office he no longer had the power to declassify them.

 

[christian-surfer]

You miss the point. Trump did not declassify the stolen classified documents before he left office. After he left office he no longer had the power to declassify them.

How did he get them ? He took them when he was in office. Perhaps there was documents that implicate the criminal behavior of the FBI in their witch hunt against them. I don't have much sympathy for people who want to live under intense government secrecy, no thanks.

I fully accepted that there was not much we could do about the much worse criminal behavior of Obama and Bush because of executive privilege. It's too bad that others can't comprehend

 

[JustOneWay]

How did he get them ? He took them when he was in office. Perhaps there was documents that implicate the criminal behavior of the FBI in their witch hunt against them. I don't have much sympathy for people who want to live under intense government secrecy, no thanks.

I fully accepted that there was not much we could do about the much worse criminal behavior of Obama and Bush because of executive privilege. It's too bad that others can't comprehend

Thanks for validating that you missed the point.

Obama and Bush never took classified documents and refused to return them.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn't matter...

Welcome to the fantasy world of US politics.

 

[christian-surfer]

Thanks for validating that you missed the point.

Obama and Bush never took classified documents and refused to return

He was asked for everything back on many ocassions. If he'd handed them back then there'd be no problem. But he lied and he made efforts to hide some of the material. This is not in question.

The people who asked for them were unelected agency people. These agencies keep their secret clearances even after they leave office. When Hilary broke the law, they claimed she didn’t know any better. Trump believed he was in the right. I would agree. He believed the law was on his side based on a correct understanding of the constitution. Maybe he had good reason to keep the documents because the corrupt system has been trying to frame him constantly and there was some useful information in the documents.
Lawyers and Judges have also shown themselves to be biased and corrupt. It’s bad for the country.

Obama jailed whistleblowers who exposed CIA torture programs, he authorized drone attacks on civilians, and continued the Bush war agenda in the Middle East, all of which I think were criminal. The democrats used to believe Bush was a criminal, I think he still is but the democrats apparently like him now. I guess they have lost their way. Whatever Trump did here has no comparison to those things in any way but what Obama and Bush did is all protected under executive privilege anyway. That’s something i had always accepted. The congress didn’t impeach them but the clock ran out. They only get 8 years and they have to face an election every 4 years. So the people relected them despite what they did. That’s how the system works even though thats what they did so whatever dumb policies the USA has had it’s on the congress and the people. That’s part of how the system is supposed to work in having an election rather than an elite class of government stooges trying to disqualify their enemies as happens in a banana republic and is what they have been trying to do to trump. If we want to have rogue judges gin up stuff about every president or x president by state courts or a biased DOJ then the country might as well split up into different countries

You will say this is what about ism, but it’s the same way that lawyers, judges, and lawmakers argue. They say there was a precedent or there was this case or that to compare it to.

For 20 Years, Team Bush Has Escaped Prosecution for Their War Crimes in Iraq

One year after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the International Criminal Court charged him with war crimes.

truthout.org

The Obama-Bush Doctrine

All leaders -- including former US President Bush and President Obama -- must be held to the same international legal standards regarding human rights.

www.amnestyusa.org

Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq​

 

[Pommer]

The people who asked for them were unelected agency people.

Whose job it is to see that everybody follows the Laws written by Congress, including ex-Presidents.

These agencies keep their secret clearances even after they leave office.

non sequitur

When Hilary broke the law, they claimed she didn’t know any better.

What was the date of her trial when this “crime” was adjudicated?

Trump believed he was in the right.

Disagreeing with the law by not following it is generally frowned upon and not at all the “defense” you seem to think it.

I would agree. He believed the law was on his side based on a correct understanding of the constitution.

And yet he’s fighting tooth-and-nail to not have his day in court to argue his case, why’s that?, one wonders?

Maybe he had good reason to keep the documents because the corrupt system has been trying to frame him constantly and there was some useful information in the documents.

Lemme guess, he was going to send this evidence to the New York Times, and expose the “corrupt system”?

Lawyers and Judges have also shown themselves to be biased and corrupt. It’s bad for the country.

Wow, the entire “system” is bad, good thing that Honest Donald Trump was there to ferret them out!

Obama jailed whistleblowers who exposed CIA torture programs, he authorized drone attacks on civilians, and continued the Bush war agenda in the Middle East, all of which I think were criminal.

The SCOTUS ruling doesn’t seem to agree with this view.

The democrats used to believe Bush was a criminal, I think he still is but the democrats apparently like him now. I guess they have lost their way. Whatever Trump did here has no comparison to those things in any way but what Obama and Bush did is all protected under executive privilege anyway. That’s something i had always accepted. The congress didn’t impeach them but the clock ran out. They only get 8 years and they have to face an election every 4 years. So the people relected them despite what they did. That’s how the system works even though thats what they did so whatever dumb policies the USA has had it’s on the congress and the people. That’s part of how the system is supposed to work in having an election rather than an elite class of government stooges trying to disqualify their enemies as happens in a banana republic and is what they have been trying to do to trump. If we want to have rogue judges gin up stuff about every president or x president by state courts or a biased DOJ then the country might as well split up into different countries

And a delightful Gish-gallop of “things”!

You will say this is what about ism, but it’s the same way that lawyers, judges, and lawmakers argue. They say there was a precedent or there was this case or that to compare it to.

For 20 Years, Team Bush Has Escaped Prosecution for Their War Crimes in Iraq

One year after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the International Criminal Court charged him with war crimes.

truthout.org

The Obama-Bush Doctrine

All leaders -- including former US President Bush and President Obama -- must be held to the same international legal standards regarding human rights.

www.amnestyusa.org

Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq​

The thread drift is impressive!