78 comments

  1. I’m not into the wall garbage, but how can he say he did nothing wrong when he took all that money from all those people yet where’s that wall?

    1. I don’t know where the wall is that he thinking of, but it is hopeful that he will finally see the walls this money has brought him… walls of a PRISON, that is!

  2. When Bannon accepted a pardon doesn’t that come with an admission of guilt? PS: Maybe they will force him to shower in prison

    1. @Heidi Hogshire Much of the confusion in this discussion arises from a misunderstanding of the distinction between the allegations of a GJ indictment or a verified information which charges specific crimes against a specific individual and the admissibility of credible evidence at trial. These are not the same. And prior bad acts are admissible evidence as long as specific safeguards are provided.

      Leaving aside the impact of a pardon for a moment, what will happen if Bannon goes to trial in NYC on the DA’s indictment?

      The DA will call the conspirators who pled guilty to the same offense, namely, the money raising scheme wherein they took funds for their own benefit and never involved themselves in building the promised wall. These witnesses will implicate Bannon in the scheme.

      Who else will testify on behalf of NYC? A federal prosecutor familiar with the prior federal case will explain it from start to finish. All relevant documents on that process will be admitted. Bannon has no basis to discredit any of that evidence: it’s all public record. Just needs a witness to explain it to the NYC jury.

      Who else would be a good witness? How about a legal expert on the law of pardons! Why is that useful? Because that witness explains why the matter never went to trial and how the prior case as to the same conduct which was a federal criminal offense and how the case ended. What else can that witness tell the jury? That an offered pardon from an Article II office holder implies and implicates legal guilt of the offense(s) charged against the intended recipient of the pardon; AND that the acceptance of a pardon for offenses charged is an affirmative admission of legal guilt by the recipient. All of that evidence is relevant and admissible.

      Bannon has no basis to challenge the admissibility of that evidence. If he chooses to go to trial — and that is his constitutional right — he cannot prevent the jury hearing all about his prior bad acts — the very same acts as charged by NY in the case the jury is hearing to which he earlier admitted his guilt by way of accepting a pardon from the then Article II office holder. It’s not just prior bad acts which are somewhat similar or sorta kinda similar or some which are very similar but occurred long ago. It’s the very same prior bad acts as the state charges in the same time frame with the same results: he defrauded donors.

      Bannon has no viable defense.

    2. @Barry Lenihan Unfortunately you are Misinformed. Also his pardon was a federal pardon regarding federal charges. Absolutely nothing to do with State charges.

  3. Who was it that bragged about what he was going to do just about a month maybe month and a half ago but sat in stony silence in the very courtroom that he was going to go “medieval”…uh yeah right.

    1. Shouldn’t he have shown up with half his face painted blue, wearing a kilt and waving around a claymore?
      Edit: My sincerest apologies to everyone who is now haunted by the visual of Bannon in a kilt.

  4. When Bannon accepted the pardon that Trump gave him he essentially admitted to his guilt in this matter. His prosecution under state laws should be a slam dunk!

    1. @Barry Lenihan A pardon offered at any time is effective, upon acceptance. Criminal charges are not necessary — much less a trial and conviction! — for the pardon to be effective.

      Ford’s pardon of Nixon is the standard.

    2. @Mews

      Double jeopardy does not attach where the jurisdictions are different.

      Even in the same jurisdiction and upon the same charges, jeopardy attaches when a jury is sworn in. Not before.

  5. I’m tired of Steve Bannon whining about everyone is after him and then wanting to put on act of bravado that he’s a tough guy. Let the trial happen, present a defense and let the judicial process occur, Mr. Tough Guy.

    1. Bannon facing 5 to 15 years, but with good behavior he could be out in 15 years. And on the bright side, he will start having weekly showers.

    1. @Heidi Hogshire All of that sounds erudite. But it ignores one of the most common rules of evidence in criminal cases: the admissibility of evidence bearing on prior bad acts. There’s a specific exception in the hearsay rule to permit such evidence as long as particular safeguards are respected.

      What is charged in an indictment, the specific crimes alleged against a specific target is not the “last word” in the nature and admissibility of evidence to prove the facts of those allegations as true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

      Don’t confuse the effect of a pardon for past conduct with evidence elicited at trial. The prior bad acts in the federal case are exactly the same as those in the state case and in the same time frame too. All of that evidence is admissible and credible too: it’s public record.

    2. @Heidi Hogshire Well then that begs the question, if you haven’t done anything or plan to do anything, why would you need a pardon? I think people get to wrapped around the legalease.

    3. @Emma Willard I think *you* are both confused, and confusing here. The only topic was whether pardons are tantamount to either a guilty verdict or guilty plea — and they are not.
      And that ends the discussion.
      Whatever your reasons for slinging around all this other stuff (rules of evidence exceptions? Subtle but unspecified differences between a Grand Jury indictment and, blah blah blah) or your bizarre warning not to confuse “the effect of a pardon … and evidence elicited at trial”?! it’s incoherent and unconnected to the thread or any comment in it!
      It’s also blowhardy, pedantic and, honestly, hostile.
      Cut it out, how about?

    4. @Master Zhao I dunno what begs your question but it isn’t the one being discussed here. The only question I’m aware of is whether a pardon confers or implies guilt and/or acceptance of guilt and whether it could potentially be used at trial against Bannon.
      As for being wrapped up in legalese, that can’t always be avoided when discussing the law but I know what you mean.

    5. @Heidi Hogshire It most certainly is. No innocent person needs a pardon. U can talk until you’re blue in the face about it doesn’t imply guilt based on some 100 yr old blah blah blah. If you need a pardon, you’re guilty of something, thus the implication.

  6. So let me get this straight, his partners have already pleaded guilty, yet, it is a political witch hunt. He is going to fight, but, will plead guilty, which means he is admitting that he did defraud people. Yet, some people are defending this.

    Unbelievable.

    1. @QueenAnita Soul Having waited to see, I now note that all major media outlets are reporting that Steve Bannon pleaded ‘not guilty’ in the NY court yesterday.

    2. @Nathaniel Wright I presume you now accept that you were misinformed, maybe not your fault given that some media outlets are not entirely reliable.

  7. This is so good. His buddies are already serving time and I’m sure they will be happy to testify for a break in their sentence. LOCK HIM UP FOR FRAUD!!!!! LOCK HIM UP FOR FRAUD!!!! Just don’t make it concurrent with the contempt!!! Separate crimes separate times!!!

  8. You know you’ve set a low moral bar for a guy when you find out he illegally spent 1 million of 25 million dollars and your first thought is, “Hey, that’s a surprisingly low percentage of fraud.”

  9. Is it just me, or has the phrase, “They’re coming after me, they’re coming after you next” become a very tired trope? Republicans telling me for years” they’re coming for me”. Somehow they never got me. Nobody has taken my home, my wife, my kids, my dog, my life. I equate my success to not breaking the law.

    1. Indeed, a good share of your success is due to the fact that you have NOT misplaced your moral compass and you have NOT placed yourself above the laws of the land.

  10. It’s good to see SOME prosecutors taking action to protect The People. Now when are we going to see Trump prosecuted for any of his felonious behavior?

  11. The man claims to be about law and order. However, he’s upset because he committed a crime,and has to pay for it

    1. What crime did he commit? No one who donated money to the wall that he built is complaining about it. Doesn’t there have to be a victim for there to be a crime?

    2. @jerry vannosteron Do not waste your time, Jerry. It is nearly impossible to change the minds of folks who refuse to ask themselves what do I believe and why do I believe it. It takes courage to examine and challenge one’s convictions and beliefs.

  12. I worked for DOD for 36 years. We were regularly reminded not to take any materials, especially classified materials home. We were reminded of the penalties under the law we would face if we did. Agent Orange came under the same guidelines as all other government employees. If he did the crime…he should do the time!

    1. After reading your comment, I remembered I worked for a couple temp jobs through an employment service. The first one I had to get a clearance because the temp job was opening and sorting income tax returns. I handled people’s tax returns and the checks they sent with it. I loved it, but I was called back the week before I went on vacation and they said that wouldn’t work for them.

  13. For the media: “They’ll have to kill me to stop me from fighting!”
    For the judge: “I plead guilty on all charges and beg for leniency, Your Honor.” πŸ™„
    But I still remember that elderly maga woman who was crying tears of desperation for Sloppy Steve, and simultaneously singing praise and gratitude to him for his “fight against the evil and for sacrificing his freedom to expose the truth etc.”
    You can’t prevent gullible people from worshiping those who despise and fleece them, I guess.

  14. “Don’t go down without a fight to the death, Sloppy Steve!”
    “He turned himself in already.”
    “The wimp.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.