Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 6
With his trial pending for ripping off a private wall building group the President, CEO and chief muckracker of WarRoom seems to be getting a tad insecure.
"I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day. He will not have a blue pass to the White house, he will not have full access to the White House, he will be like any other person," Bannon said. "He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. "I made it my personal thing to take this guy down."Bannon lashed Musk, who also own social media platform X, for his stance on H-1B visas, and for Musk's alleged involvement in European politics.""My history is I threw him out of the White House every day for 30 days in a row in 2017, because he was looking for subsidies paid for by American working-class people, people making $35,000 a year was supposed to pay, basically, taxes to support rewrite on Tesla,"Does Musk deign to respond to the alcoholic gnat that advised Trump's MAGA kayfabe in 2016, or is Musk a sufficiently grandiose legend in his own mind to ignore the guy who claims innocence for charges to which his co-thieves pled guilty?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bann...The trial had been scheduled to begin in New York on Dec. 9, but prosecutors asked to introduce additional financial evidence that they say explains Bannon's motive in participating in the alleged scheme, and Judge April Newbauer, a New York State Supreme Court acting justice, granted their motion. Bannon’s trial is now set for Feb. 25, more than a month after Trump’s inauguration. Can Trump pardon Bannon before winning Atty Bragg takes his swings his fat ass?
No. of Recommendations: 6
Can Trump pardon Bannon before winning Atty Bragg takes his swings his fat ass?
As I understand it the POTUS can only pardon someone for federal crimes. Of course after the SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling all it would take is another ruling from them to overturn that too. It appears to me that we have not only built our house on sand, it is quicksand.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Can Trump pardon Bannon before winning Atty Bragg takes his swings his fat ass?
The President can't grant pardons in state proceedings. Only for federal crimes.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And no person is above the law.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The President can't grant pardons in state proceedings. Only for federal crimes.
Yes. That is the current law.
Given Trump's history, I will not be surprised if he chooses to ignore that law and issue a pardon, forcing the issue into the courts. Once in the courts, he will not stop with appeals until he gets a favorable ruling or is denied by the USSC.
The first step in dismantling the rule of law would be to stop following the law and court orders. As has been noted often recently, the USSC lacks a police force or an army to enforce its orders.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
Given Trump's history, I will not be surprised if he chooses to ignore that law and issue a pardon, forcing the issue into the courts. Once in the courts, he will not stop with appeals until he gets a favorable ruling or is denied by the USSC.
He wouldn't be a party to any appeals.
He could issue a pardon to Bannon, and Bannon could raise it as a putative defense to a New York state prosecution - but there's no way any state court judge would agree with him. He could then try to get the federal courts to intercede, but it's ridiculously unlikely that the SCOTUS would side with Bannon. The Constitution is so unambiguous that the Pardon power applies only to federal crimes ("The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.") that it's implausible that the Court would side with Bannon.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Given Trump's history, I will not be surprised if he chooses to ignore that law and issue a pardon, forcing the issue into the courts. Once in the courts, he will not stop with appeals until he gets a favorable ruling or is denied by the USSC.
-------------
More hand wringing and anxiety over something that will not happen. Remember when you guys saw Trump as the next Hitler? Was he or is he still? Fact or Opinion?
No. of Recommendations: 1
He wouldn't be a party to any appeals.
You need to think like a dictator.
In my scenario, it's Trump that has been wronged by the state court not following his pardon. So Trump would file a suit in federal court claiming that NY has failed to follow his pardon. He becomes the litigant, not to defend Bannon, but to defend his claimed right to pardon whomever his wishes.
Should the courts toss out the case? Of course they should - and very well might. (A bit of venue shopping might help. Don't file in the SDNY for one.) But that still leads to appeals and eventually to the USSC.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
So Trump would file a suit in federal court claiming that NY has failed to follow his pardon. He becomes the litigant, not to defend Bannon, but to defend his claimed right to pardon whomever his wishes.
Should the courts toss out the case? Of course they should - and very well might. (A bit of venue shopping might help. Don't file in the SDNY for one.) But that still leads to appeals and eventually to the USSC.
He can claim whatever he wants, but the President wouldn't have any standing in such a suit. That's not how the courts actually function. If the parties to a prosecution have a legal right that isn't being observed in the lower court, then they parties can file appeals. But the President cannot.
Nor would any appellate proceedings in that third party case slow down the actual prosecution unless Trump actually won. Unlike the immunity challenges, which allowed for interlocutory appeals (basically appeals before final judgment) and a stay pending those appeals, this would be an independent collateral attack on the proceedings. IOW, Trump can't slow down the Bannon prosecution simply by filing the challenge - he has to win a motion for an injunction.
It's just not a plausible scenario - even stipulating that the SCOTUS is very deferential to Presidential power, this is an instance where the scope of that power is so clearly limited to federal matters and where the President is so clearly not a party to the dispute, he's not going to be able to affect things. Bannon can raise the issue, but not Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Remember when you guys saw Trump as the next Hitler? Was he or is he still? Fact or Opinion?
That you use past tense shows a lack of understanding. He can be the potential Next Hitler all the way till he steps down from the Presidency. And for some people it's until he dies. And some people want a wooden stake driven into the heart and the body burned.
No. of Recommendations: 3
>>Remember when you guys saw Trump as the next Hitler? Was he or is he still? Fact or Opinion?<<
That you use past tense shows a lack of understanding. He can be the potential Next Hitler all the way till he steps down from the Presidency. And for some people it's until he dies. And some people want a wooden stake driven into the heart and the body burned. - Lapsody
-------------------
I don't recall the use of the word "potential" during the campaign season.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I don't recall the use of the word "potential" during the campaign season
It's implied, but in my case I didn't call him Hitler, and I used the term proto-fascist for some of his followers, which means a precursor to fascism. But some of his followers are full fascist.
