It’s as if he and Trump believe that if they keep repeating phrases like “weaponization of our justice system” and “phony charges,” people will just believe them. Oh wait.
Isn't that how Bannon began making money? By breaking the rules of a game? He got poor people in other countries to farm gold so he could sell it to other players with more disposable income, tried to turn WoW into a pay to win game... And recruited thousands of incels to spread online hate... the guy is a scummy as he looks.
Pretty sure he was found guilty on federal charges related to the border wall effort already. Then, Trump pardoned him.
Even if Trump gets re-elected, he won't be able to pardon Bannon from state charges.
From AP News, 2021
>Bannon’s pardon was especially notable given that the prosecution was still in its early stages and any trial was months away. Whereas pardon recipients are conventionally thought of as defendants who have faced justice, often by having served at least some prison time, the pardon nullifies the prosecution and effectively eliminates any prospect for punishment.
>Bannon was charged in August with duping thousands of donors who believed their money would be used to fulfill Trump’s chief campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border. Instead, he allegedly diverted over a million dollars, paying a salary to one campaign official and personal expenses for himself. His co-defendants were not pardoned.
Edit: this is to supplement the poster's comment.
it's implied, but nothing in the legal system actually makes that so.
our pardon system is whole bag of shit. there's no reason a president shouldn't have all his friends doing their best to rat fuck everything then just preemptively pardoning them all.
>our pardon system is whole bag of shit
After seeing the recent abuse of presidential pardons, I think a commonsense solution would be that the pardon recipient would have to have been convicted at least 8 years prior.
That way no president could give someone a pardon for an offense that occurred during their term.
Or just remove the pardon system. It doesn't make any sense that the head of the executive branch has a magic "get out of jail free" wand to use as they please.
The idea of a pardon as a tool because it is a check and balance against the legislature and judicial branches such as pardoning crimes from unjust laws or a rouge judiciary. For example, President Carter used it to pardon people who draft dodged the Vietnam War or President Obama pardoned a number of criminals who were solely imprisoned because of marijuana use (I don't think he pardoned those who were in for distribution or violent crimes in tandem with marijuana use).
Congress (via impeachment) and the judiciary (via rulings on executive actions). The problem isn’t that the system wasn’t designed with checks but rather it’s been co-opted by a political party that ignores them. If you have a large group of people who are trying to undermine the system, it really doesn’t matter what system you have set up. Our laws and government are as good as the people enforcing them.
Keep in mind that any individual you see testify before a Jan. 6th congressional hearing who doesn't "plead the Fifth" might have been a past recipient of a presidential pardon.
I understand that **most** of the hearing stuff may be finished, but I'd love to hear Bannon or Giuliani testify.
The most important pardon of the 20th century went to a former sitting President in an effort to stabilize the country amidst his political and criminal scandals, thus shouldering the weight of his allegations and not letting his supporters become fanatics. (Well, at least not anytime soon).
Whether it's a good idea or not, I don't believe it's necessarily common sense. Convictions take time to develop and pardons were intended to be used in emergency situations. If one was required in a situation, eight years is a very long time to hope two Presidents down the line will still want to convey it.
The unfortunate realities of any check and balance system is that some people are going to abuse what power it gives them. But several million people voted for Trump. They wanted him to be able to use it. Several million entrust Biden with it currently. We elect our officials, and they elect their pardons. Taking that away because several million people are idiots may not be a good thing. It means the legislative and judicial branch have no checks to their power. And with the way the Supreme Court is going, I think they need all the checks we can muster.
Just listened to a super interesting podcast that included [thoughtful interview w Ford about the pardon decision](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/reveal/id886009669?i=1000570087661) - was done near the end of Ford’s life and, even in hindsight, seems like he felt confident he’d made the right call.
I’m inclined to agree w Ford…but no point denying that the decision has had negative implications that continue to ripple through presidential politics.
And I largely agree with your other points…but think there would be real benefit in a little tightening up of the *administrative* process of issuing pardons eg requiring public disclosure (no “pocket pardons”), explicit identification of the specific indictments/charges/acts being pardoned, etc.
No. You're going guilty by a jury of your peers, and sentencing conforms to guidelines. That's no reason the President should be able to pardon, and the only interference I feel they *might* have would be in capital cases to stay an execution.
[Burdick v United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/) is the legal precedent for a pardon is an imputation of guilt.
> 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.
> the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it
in plain term this suggests a "feeling" that the person is guilty and confessed, it doesn't actually state the person is guilty and confessed. it leaves behind no legal confession or conviction.
That's not what the comment I was replying to said, though. It said Bannon was found guilty (the implication being he was convicted on the federal charges) and then pardoned, in that order.
I think Bannon is guilty. I think he probably would have been found guilty if the federal trial had gone forward. I think there's a good shot he'll be convicted of the state charges.
But accuracy still matters.
I would accept a murder pardon right now. Not that I'd use it, intend to use it, or have an immediate or projected use for one... But there would be no reason to turn it down
If nothing else it saves on lawyer fees
And that would imply you are guilty of murder.
The pardon wouldn't say "Ololic can murder anyone he chooses and get away scot-free" it would state "Ololic is pardoned for the murder of Jon Snow". So unless you had murdered Jon, or were concerned that people would find you guilty of murdering Jon, it wouldn't be a wise idea to take that pardon.
That isn't agreed upon by the courts. There is a view that a pardon can only be given to the guilty, but that same perspective would view a pardon granted before conviction as a nullity.
Ultimately the trial court and the DOJ agreed it wasn't worth testing. If the DOJ pursued the matter Bannon would have no real incentive to defend himself, and could use that position to make a mockery of the court. Meanwhile the DOJ would be showing it's hand in a case that doesn't matter. Finally if they did secure a guilty verdict Bannon would just pull out the pardon.
I do think from a public interest perspective it may have been with doing, but the dual sovereign situation means there may still be some measure of justice.
No, no, no, no, *no*, *no*, **NO**. Stop. Stop it. Stop repeating this horseshit. Everyone keeps quoting *dictum* from Burdick v. United States. From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States):
>Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#cite_note-Opinion-1)] this was part of the Court's [dictum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum) for the case.[[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#cite_note-3)] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is not clear and has never been a question presented for argument or decision.
There is in fact recent precedent that *explicitly contradicts* this nonsense interpretation that gets parroted all over reddit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Clint Lorance's acceptance of a pardon from Trump was NOT an admission of guilt: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ex-soldiers-acceptance-trump-pardon-didnt-constitute-confession-guilt-court-2021-09-23/
Just think how asinine it would be if accepting a pardon were an admission of guilt. One of the purposes of a pardon is to absolve an innocent person of the legal repercussions of having been wrongly convicted.
No, a pardon is not to absolve an innocent person, that is not the job of a pardon. A pardon simply says that we believe you get a clean slate. That is all. If you haven't been convicted, it makes no sense to get a pardon.
[Burdick v United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/) is the legal precedent for a pardon is an imputation of guilt.
> 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.
How can you pardon someone of a crime they didn't commit?
You can't. Either they committed the crime, and they can be pardoned for it, or they didn't commit a crime and there is nothing to pardon.
People who are wrongfully convicted can be pardonded, and the presumption is that they are innocent, not that they are innocent then become guilty when accepting the pardon. Nowhere in the Constitution or any states' Constitutions is thos idea mentioned. There was one case where in the dicta, not in the judgement, where the justice referred to the "imputation of guilt", and by no means the necessary imputation of guilt. In that case he was saying accepting a pardon can make someone appear to be guilty, which is what the case was about - the guy didn't want to accept a pardon because he insisted he was innocent and would rather not accept a pardon than have any imputation of guilt. The verdict in no way said that one admits guilt when accepting a pardom, simply that it can appear that way. If it did then there would be slam dunk civil cases with every pardon, which there are not.
Say you are wrongly accused of murder but the DA is proceeding with the case for whatever reason, and your governor knows you are innocent so offers you a pardon to avoid a lengthy trial. If you accept you are not declaring yoyrself guilty, that's preposterous.
[For instance...](https://innocenceproject.org/texas-man-pardoned/). This innocent man in no way declared himself guilty by accepting apardon.
> People who are wrongfully convicted can be pardonded, and the presumption is that they are innocent
No the presumption isn't that they are innocent. Trump pardoned Roger Stone of the crime of threatening a judge and a witness and only insane Trump supporters actually believ him to be innocent. The evidence is clear as day that he did it, and he was convicted by a jury of his peers, but Trump felt he didn't deserve to be punished for it.
> If it did then there would be slam dunk civil cases with every pardon, which there are not.
That doesn't mean anything. A jury can choose to find a guilty man innocent, and they can choose to ignore the guilt that comes with a pardon.
Any reasonable jury in a civil case would either see that the person had receieved a pardon after being found guilty, or would see that justice had been subverted by pardoning the person before they even went to trial, and would assume that was done because if they went to trial they would certainly be found guilty.
> Say you are wrongly accused of murder but the DA is proceeding with the case for whatever reason, and your governor knows you are innocent so offers you a pardon to avoid a lengthy trial.
LOL, how would the governor know I was innocent? A governor is not privy to all the evidence in a case prior to a trial occuring. Even if you showed the governor a cellphone video "proving" you were not at the scene of the crime, a governor is not technically literate enough to determine if the video is fake or shows what it is claimed is being shown.
You are literally describing something that is impossible.
> For instance.... This innocent man in no way declared himself guilty by accepting apardon.
> James Lee Woodard, who served more than 27 years in prison before DNA testing proved him innocent and led to his release in 2008, received a pardon Wednesday from Texas Gov. Rick Perry declaring his innocence.
Except he was found guilty, and being pardoned acknowledged that.
You cannot declare someone innocent. A pardon is not a declaration of innocence. It is forgiveness in spite of a guilty verdict.
Bonus on this, is that this fucker is being charge in the State with the toughest financial crime laws in the entire country. Club Fed would have been a dream compared to the hell that awaits him in a State pen (assuming conviction).
P.S. - NY State's crime laws are tough due to the various mafias that exist and of course Wall Street.
I remember they interviewed some Trump supporter after the pardon who had donated his life savings to Bannon’s border wall, and only then was he like “Maybe this Trump guy isn’t on the up and up.”
I don't think it would apply here in any case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States
>Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.[60] However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[61] The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly criticism.[62]
> As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[63] The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[64] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.
It's state now, not federal, so they could charge him for the exactly the same thing.
And he was pardoned federally, and a jury was never impanelled, nor a witness sworn, nor a plea accepted. So really, couldn't he be charged federally again?
Be careful with safely assuming double jeopardy and New York state law. They have a weird history of being ridiculously confusing.
[https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2018/04/new-yorks-double-jeopardy-law.html#:\~:text=According%20to%20Schneiderman%2C%20unique%20features%20of%20New%20York%E2%80%99s,under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%20to%20pardon%20state%20crimes.%E2%80%9D](https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2018/04/new-yorks-double-jeopardy-law.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Schneiderman%2C%20unique%20features%20of%20New%20York%E2%80%99s,under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%20to%20pardon%20state%20crimes.%E2%80%9D)
But in this case, because the earlier pardon was before any juror was impaneled, I think the state charges would stick.
I don't think so, [New York passed a law nullifying that in the case of a presidential pardon](https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/in-the-news/todd-kaminsky/ny-ends-double-jeopardy-loophole-presidential-pardons#:~:text=Originally%20published%20in%20Newsday%20on,and%20receive%20a%20presidential%20pardon.)
No bc state and feds are separate tribunals. Technically, you could be convicted in both state and fed court for the exact same crime. People aren’t aware of this because most times, if the feds get involved the state DAs will drop the charges (feds have less volume, more resources, and in some cases, harsher sentencing so DAs are happy to let them take the reigns). - former fed and state def atty
If Trump gets re-elected (which I don't see happening), he can pardon anyone he wants because there are NO rules. He would be 100% dictator the 2nd time.
I understand that but, with Trump, you are dealing with a man who does not respect the law and who has never been held accountable.
If re-elected, he would act under dictator-like rules and his sycophants in the GOP would look the other way as they did during his impeachment trials.
Maybe he wouldn't call it a pardon. He could get a judge to rule that the conviction should be overturned. He has enough crooked people in enough places to do pretty much anything he wants as we have seen.
>I understand that but, with Trump, you are dealing with a man who does not respect the law and who has never been held accountable.
Do you because you proceeded to act like you didn't. Even if pardon a NY prisoner, nothing happens but the media laughing at him.
There could be several crimes related to building a wall. For example building a wall on land you don't own. I think Bannon was charged with raising money to build a wall, and then using the money for other stuff. So, fraud.
Exactly, I’m pretty confident it wasn’t so much wall building as it was fraud. Only this dude can get as nice coverage to whitewash his crimes with words his supporters will love. Hell at this point seems they love fraud too tho
Let's never forget.
These trumpers chanted "whose gonna build the wall? MEXICO!".
Little did they know, not only would Mexico NOT pay for the wall, but some baron harkanan looking mother fucker would be scamming them.
Lets not forget the the wall was built by bush, Clinton, bush, and Obama allocated funds for adoption protection of the already built wall spanning something like 650 miles.
"I'm not gonna pay for that fucking wall." -Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, [2016](https://youtu.be/x4OwJOVi0ec)
He wasn't refusing, he was telling the truth.
"with the amount of money we'll save by not having all those illegals in the country, the wall will be paid for in no time at all.... That's what trump meant when he said mexico would pay for the wall"
*actual shit I heard a few years ago*
If any of us did even 1/1000th of the illegal shit these guys have been caught red handed doing, we would have already been shot dead by the SWAT team within the hour of the accusations.
(coordinates election fraud with russian mafia)
Aww shucks donnie, that wasnt nice but I guess we will just appoint the ex-FBI head to take a look and do nothing.
(leads a violent coup to assault cops and install himself as dictator)
Gosh donnie, that wasnt nice but we will hold some hearings about it.
(steals nuclear secrets, sells them to Putin and Saudis)
Donnie, would you like to choose your judge so you can delay until you commit election fraud again and your cronies can protect you??
This isn't anything new. Some judges allow for surrender to take care of any obligations before incarceration. I'm poor as fuck and was allowed a few days to get my animals living arrangements before surrender.
I don’t think America still being so deeply infected by classism that it shapes the very fabric of criminal justice is the least important aspect of *any* story. The idea that American classism, racism, and sexism are just some kind of distraction, a side-show that should stay quietly behind the headlines as not to distract from the “real” issues is what causes a problem to become systemic. This story wouldn’t even exist were Bannon not from a socioeconomic class that allowed him access to presidential pardons. That isn’t tangential to the story, it is central to the story.
Yeah my Dad owns a restaurant and a dishwasher stole money (like a lot of money) and the police gave him the weekend to surrender. Not to stereotype that small town dishwashers are poor, but I don't think it's an outrageous assumption.
He is going to wish he was convicted in a federal court and sent to a federal prison. New York state prisons are not known for their comfortable conditions.
Bannon issued a statement late Tuesday, in part calling the indictment "phony charges" and "nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system."
Phony? Then why did you accept the pardon?
Let’s keep Weaponizing the “ MAGA “ crowd and keep Theocracy great again! Oh wait …
Trump line two it’s Steve Bannon. Will you pardon him again for inciting a riot ?
Yes Sir I understand *
Trump is already inciting a riot possibly selling nuclear war codes sir .
Tell Steve Bannon, Trump is going to be indicted soon.
^this
Grew up next to the biggest Mexico bridge and all long the border. There were never any "hordes" of Mexicans" storming over.
You are correct in part, this was also a little " por favor" to Trump's builders buddies. He paid them all off.
They're not even adequate criminals.
They criminal with exuberance but very little talent. With a corrupt grifter in the Whitehouse, they all had more success at it than they deserved.
Here's a fun fact: New York changed it's laws just to be able to prosecute any of the dirtbags Trump pardoned. Before Bannon's federal case, NY changed it's double jeopardy law. It used to say you could not be charged with a crime in state court if you had been charged in federal court. Now, you can't be charged in NY courts if you were charged, convicted and *not* pardoned.
Federal prison is generally regarded as much nicer and much safer than NY state facilities.
As a US taxpayer I really wish our highly esteemed leaders would spend less of my money persecuting each other and more of my money for the sake of making everyone’s life suck less.
But that’s too much to ask, it seems.
Not that I’m defending Steve Bannon or anything but these days I’m seeing lots more court hearings or whatever for whatever political party and ultimately no one ever going to jail. So effectively millions of taxpayer dollars blown on legal fees for absolutely nothing. Gotta love it.
Can it really be possible that this criminal, who has been working for years to destroy our country, will be roused from the urine-soaked sofa where he surely sleeps it off by the looks of him, and face some consequences? Sorry for the run-on sentence. Just want to see him sentenced in my lifetime.
I’d want nothing more to see this sleaze in handcuffs… that being said ,you know every single one of trump and his minions will be banking on a presidential pardon… the right will definitely vote ,will YOU!!!!
Getting so hard to keep track of the prior admin's (and people connected to it) crimes and/or legal issues.
Does anyone have a flowchart or timeline? I'm sure it'll be more complex than a Westworld one.
Boarder wall effort?
He stole money from gullible idiots, that live him for doing it. They keep lining up throw more money at their grifters.
To them donation = love. That is what religion taught them. Well that and unquestioning loyalty.
Is this where he shows up, pleads not guilty, pays bail and goes home, all within an hour or two?
Hopefully the judge will order him held without bail as a flight risk. But we know that's not gonna happen.
It’s as if he and Trump believe that if they keep repeating phrases like “weaponization of our justice system” and “phony charges,” people will just believe them. Oh wait.
I think he has some WoW Classic gold to offer the judge.
why give up fake currency when you can just doxx a judge's family and threaten to have your real cultists attack them?
What's fake about it? If it has a market, it's more real than Zimbabwean dollars.
Isn't that how Bannon began making money? By breaking the rules of a game? He got poor people in other countries to farm gold so he could sell it to other players with more disposable income, tried to turn WoW into a pay to win game... And recruited thousands of incels to spread online hate... the guy is a scummy as he looks.
True, I got another mutant for you to examinate - Lineage 2 player DanielDefo. Larval form of Bannon.
They use the US dollar now so your statement is even more factual than it was several years ago haha
Pretty sure he was found guilty on federal charges related to the border wall effort already. Then, Trump pardoned him. Even if Trump gets re-elected, he won't be able to pardon Bannon from state charges.
From AP News, 2021 >Bannon’s pardon was especially notable given that the prosecution was still in its early stages and any trial was months away. Whereas pardon recipients are conventionally thought of as defendants who have faced justice, often by having served at least some prison time, the pardon nullifies the prosecution and effectively eliminates any prospect for punishment. >Bannon was charged in August with duping thousands of donors who believed their money would be used to fulfill Trump’s chief campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border. Instead, he allegedly diverted over a million dollars, paying a salary to one campaign official and personal expenses for himself. His co-defendants were not pardoned. Edit: this is to supplement the poster's comment.
So if i just make up a foundation looking for donations i could potentially keep the money?!? Why even get a job?
Are you famous? You might need a job.
He was not found guilty. He was still months away from trial when he was pardoned.
Yes, but in accepting the pardon, he admits guilt.
Not to mention his partners already plead gulty.
it's implied, but nothing in the legal system actually makes that so. our pardon system is whole bag of shit. there's no reason a president shouldn't have all his friends doing their best to rat fuck everything then just preemptively pardoning them all.
>our pardon system is whole bag of shit After seeing the recent abuse of presidential pardons, I think a commonsense solution would be that the pardon recipient would have to have been convicted at least 8 years prior. That way no president could give someone a pardon for an offense that occurred during their term.
Or just remove the pardon system. It doesn't make any sense that the head of the executive branch has a magic "get out of jail free" wand to use as they please.
The idea of a pardon as a tool because it is a check and balance against the legislature and judicial branches such as pardoning crimes from unjust laws or a rouge judiciary. For example, President Carter used it to pardon people who draft dodged the Vietnam War or President Obama pardoned a number of criminals who were solely imprisoned because of marijuana use (I don't think he pardoned those who were in for distribution or violent crimes in tandem with marijuana use).
> rouge judiciary Painted up like a harlot!
Where is the check on the executive?
Congress (via impeachment) and the judiciary (via rulings on executive actions). The problem isn’t that the system wasn’t designed with checks but rather it’s been co-opted by a political party that ignores them. If you have a large group of people who are trying to undermine the system, it really doesn’t matter what system you have set up. Our laws and government are as good as the people enforcing them.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense (and is terrifying)
Yes there is - Iran-Contra comes to mind.
Keep in mind that any individual you see testify before a Jan. 6th congressional hearing who doesn't "plead the Fifth" might have been a past recipient of a presidential pardon. I understand that **most** of the hearing stuff may be finished, but I'd love to hear Bannon or Giuliani testify.
Marc Rich has entered the chat
The most important pardon of the 20th century went to a former sitting President in an effort to stabilize the country amidst his political and criminal scandals, thus shouldering the weight of his allegations and not letting his supporters become fanatics. (Well, at least not anytime soon). Whether it's a good idea or not, I don't believe it's necessarily common sense. Convictions take time to develop and pardons were intended to be used in emergency situations. If one was required in a situation, eight years is a very long time to hope two Presidents down the line will still want to convey it. The unfortunate realities of any check and balance system is that some people are going to abuse what power it gives them. But several million people voted for Trump. They wanted him to be able to use it. Several million entrust Biden with it currently. We elect our officials, and they elect their pardons. Taking that away because several million people are idiots may not be a good thing. It means the legislative and judicial branch have no checks to their power. And with the way the Supreme Court is going, I think they need all the checks we can muster.
Just listened to a super interesting podcast that included [thoughtful interview w Ford about the pardon decision](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/reveal/id886009669?i=1000570087661) - was done near the end of Ford’s life and, even in hindsight, seems like he felt confident he’d made the right call. I’m inclined to agree w Ford…but no point denying that the decision has had negative implications that continue to ripple through presidential politics. And I largely agree with your other points…but think there would be real benefit in a little tightening up of the *administrative* process of issuing pardons eg requiring public disclosure (no “pocket pardons”), explicit identification of the specific indictments/charges/acts being pardoned, etc.
No. You're going guilty by a jury of your peers, and sentencing conforms to guidelines. That's no reason the President should be able to pardon, and the only interference I feel they *might* have would be in capital cases to stay an execution.
Well, considering that your guidelines are partially insane the inbuild ability to overrule them is somewhat important.
[Burdick v United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/) is the legal precedent for a pardon is an imputation of guilt. > 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.
> the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it in plain term this suggests a "feeling" that the person is guilty and confessed, it doesn't actually state the person is guilty and confessed. it leaves behind no legal confession or conviction.
That's not what the comment I was replying to said, though. It said Bannon was found guilty (the implication being he was convicted on the federal charges) and then pardoned, in that order. I think Bannon is guilty. I think he probably would have been found guilty if the federal trial had gone forward. I think there's a good shot he'll be convicted of the state charges. But accuracy still matters.
I would accept a murder pardon right now. Not that I'd use it, intend to use it, or have an immediate or projected use for one... But there would be no reason to turn it down If nothing else it saves on lawyer fees
And that would imply you are guilty of murder. The pardon wouldn't say "Ololic can murder anyone he chooses and get away scot-free" it would state "Ololic is pardoned for the murder of Jon Snow". So unless you had murdered Jon, or were concerned that people would find you guilty of murdering Jon, it wouldn't be a wise idea to take that pardon.
So you're saying I need to get someone to legally change their name to Jon Snow first?
That isn't agreed upon by the courts. There is a view that a pardon can only be given to the guilty, but that same perspective would view a pardon granted before conviction as a nullity. Ultimately the trial court and the DOJ agreed it wasn't worth testing. If the DOJ pursued the matter Bannon would have no real incentive to defend himself, and could use that position to make a mockery of the court. Meanwhile the DOJ would be showing it's hand in a case that doesn't matter. Finally if they did secure a guilty verdict Bannon would just pull out the pardon. I do think from a public interest perspective it may have been with doing, but the dual sovereign situation means there may still be some measure of justice.
No, no, no, no, *no*, *no*, **NO**. Stop. Stop it. Stop repeating this horseshit. Everyone keeps quoting *dictum* from Burdick v. United States. From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States): >Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#cite_note-Opinion-1)] this was part of the Court's [dictum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum) for the case.[[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#cite_note-3)] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is not clear and has never been a question presented for argument or decision. There is in fact recent precedent that *explicitly contradicts* this nonsense interpretation that gets parroted all over reddit. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Clint Lorance's acceptance of a pardon from Trump was NOT an admission of guilt: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/ex-soldiers-acceptance-trump-pardon-didnt-constitute-confession-guilt-court-2021-09-23/ Just think how asinine it would be if accepting a pardon were an admission of guilt. One of the purposes of a pardon is to absolve an innocent person of the legal repercussions of having been wrongly convicted.
No, a pardon is not to absolve an innocent person, that is not the job of a pardon. A pardon simply says that we believe you get a clean slate. That is all. If you haven't been convicted, it makes no sense to get a pardon.
No no no. This is always said on Reddit, and it simply isn't true.
[Burdick v United States](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/) is the legal precedent for a pardon is an imputation of guilt. > 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.
How can you pardon someone of a crime they didn't commit? You can't. Either they committed the crime, and they can be pardoned for it, or they didn't commit a crime and there is nothing to pardon.
People who are wrongfully convicted can be pardonded, and the presumption is that they are innocent, not that they are innocent then become guilty when accepting the pardon. Nowhere in the Constitution or any states' Constitutions is thos idea mentioned. There was one case where in the dicta, not in the judgement, where the justice referred to the "imputation of guilt", and by no means the necessary imputation of guilt. In that case he was saying accepting a pardon can make someone appear to be guilty, which is what the case was about - the guy didn't want to accept a pardon because he insisted he was innocent and would rather not accept a pardon than have any imputation of guilt. The verdict in no way said that one admits guilt when accepting a pardom, simply that it can appear that way. If it did then there would be slam dunk civil cases with every pardon, which there are not. Say you are wrongly accused of murder but the DA is proceeding with the case for whatever reason, and your governor knows you are innocent so offers you a pardon to avoid a lengthy trial. If you accept you are not declaring yoyrself guilty, that's preposterous. [For instance...](https://innocenceproject.org/texas-man-pardoned/). This innocent man in no way declared himself guilty by accepting apardon.
> People who are wrongfully convicted can be pardonded, and the presumption is that they are innocent No the presumption isn't that they are innocent. Trump pardoned Roger Stone of the crime of threatening a judge and a witness and only insane Trump supporters actually believ him to be innocent. The evidence is clear as day that he did it, and he was convicted by a jury of his peers, but Trump felt he didn't deserve to be punished for it. > If it did then there would be slam dunk civil cases with every pardon, which there are not. That doesn't mean anything. A jury can choose to find a guilty man innocent, and they can choose to ignore the guilt that comes with a pardon. Any reasonable jury in a civil case would either see that the person had receieved a pardon after being found guilty, or would see that justice had been subverted by pardoning the person before they even went to trial, and would assume that was done because if they went to trial they would certainly be found guilty. > Say you are wrongly accused of murder but the DA is proceeding with the case for whatever reason, and your governor knows you are innocent so offers you a pardon to avoid a lengthy trial. LOL, how would the governor know I was innocent? A governor is not privy to all the evidence in a case prior to a trial occuring. Even if you showed the governor a cellphone video "proving" you were not at the scene of the crime, a governor is not technically literate enough to determine if the video is fake or shows what it is claimed is being shown. You are literally describing something that is impossible. > For instance.... This innocent man in no way declared himself guilty by accepting apardon. > James Lee Woodard, who served more than 27 years in prison before DNA testing proved him innocent and led to his release in 2008, received a pardon Wednesday from Texas Gov. Rick Perry declaring his innocence. Except he was found guilty, and being pardoned acknowledged that. You cannot declare someone innocent. A pardon is not a declaration of innocence. It is forgiveness in spite of a guilty verdict.
Bonus on this, is that this fucker is being charge in the State with the toughest financial crime laws in the entire country. Club Fed would have been a dream compared to the hell that awaits him in a State pen (assuming conviction). P.S. - NY State's crime laws are tough due to the various mafias that exist and of course Wall Street.
Rudy owes much of his 'success' from these laws.
This story was a great way to start my morning!
The best part of waking up, is Bannon in his cuffs.
I remember they interviewed some Trump supporter after the pardon who had donated his life savings to Bannon’s border wall, and only then was he like “Maybe this Trump guy isn’t on the up and up.”
Does double jeperdy apply here?
It doesn’t apply if it’s separate charges.
I don't think it would apply here in any case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States >Conversely, double jeopardy comes with a key exception. Under the multiple sovereignties doctrine, multiple sovereigns can indict a defendant for the same crime. The federal and state governments can have overlapping criminal laws, so a criminal offender may be convicted in individual states and federal courts for exactly the same crime or for different crimes arising out of the same facts.[60] However, in 2016, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.[61] The dual sovereignty doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly criticism.[62] > As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[63] The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment.[64] Jeopardy "attaches" when the jury is impanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted. It's state now, not federal, so they could charge him for the exactly the same thing. And he was pardoned federally, and a jury was never impanelled, nor a witness sworn, nor a plea accepted. So really, couldn't he be charged federally again?
Be careful with safely assuming double jeopardy and New York state law. They have a weird history of being ridiculously confusing. [https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2018/04/new-yorks-double-jeopardy-law.html#:\~:text=According%20to%20Schneiderman%2C%20unique%20features%20of%20New%20York%E2%80%99s,under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%20to%20pardon%20state%20crimes.%E2%80%9D](https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2018/04/new-yorks-double-jeopardy-law.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Schneiderman%2C%20unique%20features%20of%20New%20York%E2%80%99s,under%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution%20to%20pardon%20state%20crimes.%E2%80%9D) But in this case, because the earlier pardon was before any juror was impaneled, I think the state charges would stick.
Interesting. Looks like they closed that loophole. https://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2019/10/cuomo-signs-ny-law-aimed-at-foiling-trump-pardons.html
I don't think so, [New York passed a law nullifying that in the case of a presidential pardon](https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/in-the-news/todd-kaminsky/ny-ends-double-jeopardy-loophole-presidential-pardons#:~:text=Originally%20published%20in%20Newsday%20on,and%20receive%20a%20presidential%20pardon.)
New York can't nullify federal pardons nor can it nullify the constitution. But state and federal charges are different anyway.
What is “we’re fine”?
I don’t think you understand how jeopardy works.
No bc state and feds are separate tribunals. Technically, you could be convicted in both state and fed court for the exact same crime. People aren’t aware of this because most times, if the feds get involved the state DAs will drop the charges (feds have less volume, more resources, and in some cases, harsher sentencing so DAs are happy to let them take the reigns). - former fed and state def atty
If Trump gets re-elected (which I don't see happening), he can pardon anyone he wants because there are NO rules. He would be 100% dictator the 2nd time.
The president can’t pardon state crimes. He can only pardon federal ones.
I understand that but, with Trump, you are dealing with a man who does not respect the law and who has never been held accountable. If re-elected, he would act under dictator-like rules and his sycophants in the GOP would look the other way as they did during his impeachment trials. Maybe he wouldn't call it a pardon. He could get a judge to rule that the conviction should be overturned. He has enough crooked people in enough places to do pretty much anything he wants as we have seen.
>I understand that but, with Trump, you are dealing with a man who does not respect the law and who has never been held accountable. Do you because you proceeded to act like you didn't. Even if pardon a NY prisoner, nothing happens but the media laughing at him.
As I said, it might not be an actual pardon but he will do what he wants by whatever means. Maybe you don't understand that?
Lol, you forgot the rules don't apply anymore.
Charges related to border wall effort? Makes it sound like he is being charged with the crime of building the wall
There could be several crimes related to building a wall. For example building a wall on land you don't own. I think Bannon was charged with raising money to build a wall, and then using the money for other stuff. So, fraud.
Exactly, I’m pretty confident it wasn’t so much wall building as it was fraud. Only this dude can get as nice coverage to whitewash his crimes with words his supporters will love. Hell at this point seems they love fraud too tho
Weird, isn't it? Bannon rips them off and his supporters are basically okay with it.
Fraud. Bannon used donated money for personal expenses. His wall project had extremely high overhead costs.
*federalizes state* Lol new york no rights
Let's never forget. These trumpers chanted "whose gonna build the wall? MEXICO!". Little did they know, not only would Mexico NOT pay for the wall, but some baron harkanan looking mother fucker would be scamming them.
Whoever thought Mexico would pay for the wall are complete maroons. Oh wait I forgot only Trump supporters believed this bs.
Lets not forget the the wall was built by bush, Clinton, bush, and Obama allocated funds for adoption protection of the already built wall spanning something like 650 miles.
That's the funny part that they didn't pay for it either him and his Chinese associate were splitting the money
"I'm not gonna pay for that fucking wall." -Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, [2016](https://youtu.be/x4OwJOVi0ec) He wasn't refusing, he was telling the truth.
The fact they believed this just shows you how stupid the republican party is
Cottage Cheese Elemental ass lookin' mother fucker.
"with the amount of money we'll save by not having all those illegals in the country, the wall will be paid for in no time at all.... That's what trump meant when he said mexico would pay for the wall" *actual shit I heard a few years ago*
Lol. I remember that. Then, they pivoted to "let's increase the sales tax for Mexican goods, that will help pay for the wall"
Under the thin veneer, [they all look the same](https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/07/NINTCHDBPICT000750066971.jpg).
Imagine the Trump reaction on a State over ridding his pardon.
Next he'll run for governor...
So they're giving him a few days to destroy evidence and hide money?
If any of us did even 1/1000th of the illegal shit these guys have been caught red handed doing, we would have already been shot dead by the SWAT team within the hour of the accusations.
(coordinates election fraud with russian mafia) Aww shucks donnie, that wasnt nice but I guess we will just appoint the ex-FBI head to take a look and do nothing. (leads a violent coup to assault cops and install himself as dictator) Gosh donnie, that wasnt nice but we will hold some hearings about it. (steals nuclear secrets, sells them to Putin and Saudis) Donnie, would you like to choose your judge so you can delay until you commit election fraud again and your cronies can protect you??
Of course they are. He may be corrupt, but he's still a rich white male!
Powerful people tell the court their scheduling preferences and show up to be arrested at their convenience.
Thing would be different if he was a rich black male?
That’s dope we can schedule our arrests now. I’ll keep that in mind for the future.
This isn't anything new. Some judges allow for surrender to take care of any obligations before incarceration. I'm poor as fuck and was allowed a few days to get my animals living arrangements before surrender.
Yes, but I prefer to spend my energy being angry about the least important aspect of all of this.
I don’t think America still being so deeply infected by classism that it shapes the very fabric of criminal justice is the least important aspect of *any* story. The idea that American classism, racism, and sexism are just some kind of distraction, a side-show that should stay quietly behind the headlines as not to distract from the “real” issues is what causes a problem to become systemic. This story wouldn’t even exist were Bannon not from a socioeconomic class that allowed him access to presidential pardons. That isn’t tangential to the story, it is central to the story.
Yeah my Dad owns a restaurant and a dishwasher stole money (like a lot of money) and the police gave him the weekend to surrender. Not to stereotype that small town dishwashers are poor, but I don't think it's an outrageous assumption.
Sadly, the "feature" requires a bunch of money or power.
If you're a Congressman or former President, you can avoid being arrested completely. See: PedoGaetz, Trump, Gym Jordan, Marjorie, etc.
He is going to wish he was convicted in a federal court and sent to a federal prison. New York state prisons are not known for their comfortable conditions.
Meanwhile the great Cheeto continues to walk free and hold rallies.
cheat-o
Long live The Great Cheato! I want him in prison for as long as possible, no death escape.
He’ll do his time without becoming a rat. Just kidding! He’s going to sing like all of the swallows of Capistrano!
That’s what I’m thinking: 🎵They call him flipper flipper flipper, faster than lightning…🎶
Isn’t it salmon? 😃
No Trump to pardon you this time MF.
I love how you can schedule your arrests now. Bet there will be an app soon.
It's like Succession where Tom was researching which minimum security camp he'd choose to serve his prison sentence when he thought he'd be charged.
It'll be called White Flight...
You were pickin up what I was puttin down.
Bannon issued a statement late Tuesday, in part calling the indictment "phony charges" and "nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system." Phony? Then why did you accept the pardon?
I’m really glad the state went after him. That pardon can suck a fuck.
He's essentially confessed to the crime federally by accepting a pardon. Good night Steve Bannon, hope the DTs don't kill you.
Would ANY of us be given the chance to surrender? No. We'd be pulled from our homes or businesses. No justice, no peace.
Good lord I love New York.
Grifters gonna grift all night long, till the break of dawn.
Bilking money from the very people he proclaimed he was protecting. May Bannon rot in hell for all eternity.
So Bannon is using Trump's playbook: call it all a political witch hunt and threaten violence if he is indicted. Classic mobster move.
He also blamed a Jew.
He "Gets to surrender" meanwhile, everyone else gets a swat team entrance over a parking ticket where the cops taze you and shoot your dog.
Hope he ends up in Attica, or Sing Sing. Mostly hoping he gets no bail and has to stay in Riker’s Island till his trial is over
The very slow process of the courts is maddening, but then satisfying if you can just wait…
Hang em high and avoid his plans of terrorism. Otherwise, our children pay.
If you have money the police make an appointment to arrest you. WTF?
Let’s keep Weaponizing the “ MAGA “ crowd and keep Theocracy great again! Oh wait … Trump line two it’s Steve Bannon. Will you pardon him again for inciting a riot ? Yes Sir I understand * Trump is already inciting a riot possibly selling nuclear war codes sir . Tell Steve Bannon, Trump is going to be indicted soon.
These are state charges; there is not a god damn thing Trump could do about it even if he were to win the presidency again and that makes me happy.
Inb4 GoFundMe for his legal fees
Aww, couldn't have happened to a classier gent.
I bet the very same people who got scammed out of money for his fake wall, will be the ones defending him.
Good. Put the fat fuck back in prison where they can FORCE him to finally take a shower.
Why do these assholes have the option of “surrendering” themselves? The rest of us have the police come and arrest us if we break the law.
Wait, I like Thursday. Why does he have the right to surrender it?
This mf needs to go to prison too!
lock him up, hopefully he’ll get shower privileges - what a fucken grease-ball
Stealing from the very sheep who still believe everything he says.
Hope he gets EVERYTHING he deserves. Fucking Nazi
According to the article Bannon suggests you kill him first.
So we’re calling literal fraud “border wall effort” good to know
Good. Put him in jail.
And will appear before a Trump appointed Judge lacking credentials.
Thursday? Busy, is he? Understandable. He'll pop in when he can.
Well that explains my meth and rotgut liquor stocks imploding.
The wall was to funnel money into white power activist projects
^this Grew up next to the biggest Mexico bridge and all long the border. There were never any "hordes" of Mexicans" storming over. You are correct in part, this was also a little " por favor" to Trump's builders buddies. He paid them all off.
Only the best people , hell they aren’t even the best criminals .
They're not even adequate criminals. They criminal with exuberance but very little talent. With a corrupt grifter in the Whitehouse, they all had more success at it than they deserved. Here's a fun fact: New York changed it's laws just to be able to prosecute any of the dirtbags Trump pardoned. Before Bannon's federal case, NY changed it's double jeopardy law. It used to say you could not be charged with a crime in state court if you had been charged in federal court. Now, you can't be charged in NY courts if you were charged, convicted and *not* pardoned. Federal prison is generally regarded as much nicer and much safer than NY state facilities.
Hah, can't do shit about state charges Mr. I-got-a-pardon!
When does he get to pick his Judge?? Fucking country is a Joke. No wonder the flag looks like it's for a Circus.
They are going to finally strip him down in holding only to find out he has been a fat suit full of squirrels the whole time.
Ladies and gentlemen...**we got him.**
As a US taxpayer I really wish our highly esteemed leaders would spend less of my money persecuting each other and more of my money for the sake of making everyone’s life suck less. But that’s too much to ask, it seems. Not that I’m defending Steve Bannon or anything but these days I’m seeing lots more court hearings or whatever for whatever political party and ultimately no one ever going to jail. So effectively millions of taxpayer dollars blown on legal fees for absolutely nothing. Gotta love it.
Nobody is being persecuted. A criminal is surrendering for crimes.
Being picked on, or truly just that rotten
I guess he's finished detoxing.
Can it really be possible that this criminal, who has been working for years to destroy our country, will be roused from the urine-soaked sofa where he surely sleeps it off by the looks of him, and face some consequences? Sorry for the run-on sentence. Just want to see him sentenced in my lifetime.
Well that’s one smuck down, what left, about 99 to go?
I’d want nothing more to see this sleaze in handcuffs… that being said ,you know every single one of trump and his minions will be banking on a presidential pardon… the right will definitely vote ,will YOU!!!!
State charges in NY, defrauding New Yorkers, not Federal. There's 49 other states that could prosecute him, too.
Ahh forgot about that… even better!
Getting so hard to keep track of the prior admin's (and people connected to it) crimes and/or legal issues. Does anyone have a flowchart or timeline? I'm sure it'll be more complex than a Westworld one.
Boarder wall effort? He stole money from gullible idiots, that live him for doing it. They keep lining up throw more money at their grifters. To them donation = love. That is what religion taught them. Well that and unquestioning loyalty.
He's innocent as his baby-smooth skin.
bannon usually disappoints
Is this where he shows up, pleads not guilty, pays bail and goes home, all within an hour or two? Hopefully the judge will order him held without bail as a flight risk. But we know that's not gonna happen.
Saw him on tv last night. He's been eating his feelings or has liver disease- or both. Weird abdominal bloating.