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

[christian-surfer]

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


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


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

How the law applies to people in government including congress, military, intelligence, executive branch etc has always been different, although agencies don’t seem to be written into the constitution and are not elected. The Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right either. The Supreme Court, congress and executive are supposed to be equal in power.

SCOTUS stepped in in 2000 election, seems questionable.

Other rulings:

Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate ...

….

Supreme Court upheld slavery, FBI apparently killed Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, CIA tortured people, federal reserve bailed out foreign banks.

I am not sure the CIA and FBI have always done a good job but these secret police are supposed to uphold the law. Pretty ridiculous

The Supreme Court is probably also partly afraid of rioters and the left supports rioters. That is intimidation tactics

When the Supreme Court rules the wrong way on abortion then there’s a big problem as far as democrats are concerned

 

[Bradskii]

The people who asked for them were unelected agency people...

NWRT

Or: Not worth responding to...

 

[christian-surfer]

NWRT

Or: Not worth responding to...

NWRT

Or: Not worth responding to...

That’s why the sheriff according the constitutional sheriff movement has authority within his state and should be able to kick federal agents out of his state which has occurred or at least feds were challenged and they backed down. It is based on state sovereignty , having some local control of your state. The sheriff is elected. Unelected and tyrannical bureaucrats who have too much power and operate in secrecy are one of the biggest threats to freedom. That’s why the term for tyranny is “police state” which could easily apply to intelligence agencies

Such things make it harder to corrupt the government

 

[Hans Blaster]

That’s why the sheriff according the constitutional sheriff movement has authority within his state and should be able to kick federal agents out of his state which has occurred or at least feds were challenged and they backed down. It is based on state sovereignty , having some local control of your state. The sheriff is elected. Unelected and tyrannical bureaucrats who have too much power and operate in secrecy are one of the biggest threats to freedom. That’s why the term for tyranny is “police state” which could easily apply to intelligence agencies

Such things make it harder to corrupt the government

The "constitutional sheriff" movement is no such thing. There is nothing in the Constitution about sheriffs. It grants them no powers or authorities. The Constitution makes it clear that laws passed by Congress are supreme over the laws of the state. (And the "constitutional sheriffs" are the core of a police state, a state where the police (sheriff) *is* the greatest authority. Just a lot of little tin-pot dictators.)

 

[christian-surfer]

The "constitutional sheriff" movement is no such thing. There is nothing in the Constitution about sheriffs. It grants them no powers or authorities. The Constitution makes it clear that laws passed by Congress are supreme over the laws of the state. (And the "constitutional sheriffs" are the core of a police state, a state where the police (sheriff) *is* the greatest authority. Just a lot of little tin-pot dictators.)

I guess you are wrong, what it means is if the government wants to to something unconstitutional then sheriffs do not have to follow such orders. It’s kind of like in Germany when they said “I was just following orders”. When sheriffs or military take an oath, that oath is not to the president or the government but to the constitution. That is what it means. People believe that unconstitutional laws should not be followed or enforced.

most of the major crimes, cover ups, torture , detentions, human rights violations and mass civilian deaths have been caused by the military or the intelligence agencies

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess you are wrong,

Then quit guessing and learn something.

what it means is if the government wants to to something unconstitutional then sheriffs do not have to follow such orders.

"The government" doesn't command sheriffs, at least not the federal government. Sheriffs are creations of the states by their constitutions or statute. The powers they have within their counties are granted and specified by the state laws.

The "constitutional sheriff" movement is built on the faulty notion that sheriffs have a sui generis common law authority that make them the highest legal authorities in their jurisdiction. It is not connected to any legal tradition of the US, but instead to the militia movement of the Posse Commitatus of Gordon Kahl and the Michigan Militia of Terry Nichols.

It’s kind of like in Germany when they said “I was just following orders”. When sheriffs or military take an oath, that oath is not to the president or the government but to the constitution. That is what it means. People believe that unconstitutional laws should not be followed or enforced.

The sheriffs take an oath to defend and support the laws of their state.

most of the major crimes, cover ups, torture , detentions, human rights violations and mass civilian deaths have been caused by the military or the intelligence agencies

This has nothing to do with sheriffs.

 

[rjs330]

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

Steve Bannon was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress for defying subpoena from House committee that investigated 2021 attack on US Capitol

View attachment 349650

Steve Bannon, a long-time ally of former US president Donald Trump, must report to prison by July 1 to serve his four-month sentence for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the attack on the US Capitol, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

US District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington granted prosecutors’ request to make Bannon begin serving his prison term after a three-judge panel of a federal appeal court last month upheld his contempt of Congress conviction. But Nichols also made clear on Thursday in his ruling that Bannon could seek a stay of his order, which could delay his surrender date.

Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, a Republican, had initially allowed Bannon to remain free while he fought his conviction. But the panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said all of Bannon’s challenges lack merit.
Political strategist Bannon was convicted in 2022 of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the January 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump ally Steve Bannon to start prison sentence on July 1

The former top Trump adviser was ordered by a federal judge to report to prison to begin serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.

www.scmp.com

Just another example of rhe hypocrisy of the left and political persecution. This is another reason why people support Trump. We recognize how hypocritical the progressives are. How unequal rhe justice system is. There are Biden people who have defied Congress but none of them hav3 been prosecuted. This is so evident that there is no equality under the law anymore.

The left is crying over the Supreme Court ruling regarding the presidency and they are SO worried that Trump is going to start throwing people in jail. Meanwhile the progressives are doing exactly that right now, with the prosecution of Trump and now Bannon.

 

[JustOneWay]

Just another example of rhe hypocrisy of the left and political persecution. This is another reason why people support Trump. We recognize how hypocritical the progressives are. How unequal rhe justice system is. There are Biden people who have defied Congress but none of them hav3 been prosecuted. This is so evident that there is no equality under the law anymore.

The left is crying over the Supreme Court ruling regarding the presidency and they are SO worried that Trump is going to start throwing people in jail. Meanwhile the progressives are doing exactly that right now, with the prosecution of Trump and now Bannon.

MAGA!

 

[rjs330]

MAGA!

Typical.

 

[JustOneWay]

Typical.

Please forgive me if you are ashamed of MAGA. From the words you posted it seems clear considering you are using MAGA rhetoric.

 

[essentialsaltes]

and now Bannon.

Bannon was prosecuted by the Trump Administration for fraud until Trump pardoned him.

Certainly there is some unequal justice being meted out when one side uses the powers of pardon and immunity to protect itself from the consequences of its own actions.

 

[rjs330]

Please forgive me if you are ashamed of MAGA. From the words you posted it seems clear considering you are using MAGA rhetoric.

Why would I be ashamed? Where on earth did you get that idea?

I wrote a very good post concerning the hypocrisy of the politics of the left and all you had to say was MAGA? As if that was supposed to.mean something?

 

[rjs330]

Bannon was prosecuted by the Trump Administration for fraud until Trump pardoned him.

Certainly there is some unequal justice being meted out when one side uses the powers of pardon and immunity to protect itself from the consequences of its own actions.

As opposed to using prosecution to harm one's political opponants? While the same justice system protects you or your side from any prosecution itself.

 

[rjs330]

I'd have no problem with the prosecution of Trump.or Bannon or anyone else as long as both sides were treated equally.

Thats honestly all I want.

 

[JustOneWay]

Why would I be ashamed? Where on earth did you get that idea?

I wrote a very good post concerning the hypocrisy of the politics of the left and all you had to say was MAGA? As if that was supposed to.mean something?

Already answered. You quoted the post.

 

[JustOneWay]

As opposed to using prosecution to harm one's political opponants? While the same justice system protects you or your side from any prosecution itself.

Fact. Trump administration prosecuted Bannon and Trump pardoned.

Opinion. Biden is directing DOJ to prosecute Trump.

I am just looking for a little consistency and equality with facts....

 

[essentialsaltes]

As opposed to using prosecution to harm one's political opponants? While the same justice system protects you or your side from any prosecution itself.

That must be why Hunter Biden is convicted and Senator Menendez and the mayor of Oakland are facing charges.

 

[christian-surfer]

Then quit guessing and learn something.

"The government" doesn't command sheriffs, at least not the federal government. Sheriffs are creations of the states by their constitutions or statute. The powers they have within their counties are granted and specified by the state laws.

The "constitutional sheriff" movement is built on the faulty notion that sheriffs have a sui generis common law authority that make them the highest legal authorities in their jurisdiction. It is not connected to any legal tradition of the US, but instead to the militia movement of the Posse Commitatus of Gordon Kahl and the Michigan Militia of Terry Nichols.

The sheriffs take an oath to defend and support the laws of their state.

This has nothing to do with sheriffs.

The general idea seems to be to uphold the constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Some sheriffs do swear an oath to the constitution. Steve Bannon here interviews sheriff Mack. He mentions red flag laws where say if your x wife has a grudge against you then she just calls the police and they take away your guns and the process to get them back is probably convoluted. He mentions arresting Amish farmers because they didn’t pasturize milk and mentions abuses by federal agents. Also mentioned was arresting a Christian pastor for holding church service during Covid. This is because the government may have decided that liquor stores are essential but church service is non essential, a seemingly arbitrary determination would be a kind word for that.

Other constitutional sheriffs mention that they are elected and the process to fire a sheriff should not be overly simple by a governor but a more involved legal process in order to preserve checks and balances. A complex system of checks and balances is supposed to help preserve constitutional rights, due process, rights of the minorities views etc

Sheriffs Are In A Position Where They Can Stop These Horrible Federal and FBI Attacks

Sheriff Mack joins Steve Bannon on Bannon's War Room to discuss how Sheriffs are in a position where they can stop the federal and FBI attacks

cspoa.org

 

[Bradskii]

The general idea seems to be to uphold the constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Some sheriffs do swear an oath to the constitution. Steve Bannon here interviews sheriff Mack.

Maybe Mack gave him some heads up on how to conduct himself in the slammer. I mean, do you pick up the soap or not.

 

[christian-surfer]

Maybe Mack gave him some heads up on how to conduct himself in the slammer. I mean, do you pick up the soap or not.

There seems to be a lot of problems with the government version of j6, Steve bannon, arresting people for trespassing etc

Trump pardoned bannon and the crime seemed to be more selective lawfareby democrats for fairly innocuous activities as usual. Obama actually pardoned a terrorist apparently who was involved in planning numerous bombings

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/oscar-lopez-commutation-barack-obama-214685/

Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?​

Oscar Lopez was one of the most violent extremists of his time. The fact that Obama commuted his sentence doesn’t speak well of U.S. politics.