can bannon get a fair trial?

Courts don't decide innocence or guilt. They decide guilty or not guilty.

Beyond that difference, I absolutely agree and they don't want a fair trial. They want special rules for the Orange Stain and his partners in crime.

 

Can you share links to your posts in which you were concerned about an unfair justice system as it pertains to black and brown people, please?

 

Yet to be seen

 

So, is this is an admission that you do not read my posts?

 

What? So, you don't seem to give a damn if Bannon is in an unfair trial where he is railroaded into being guilty? You have already decided guilt and must have a set of jurors who agree with your verdict?

 

Can you share links to your posts in which you were concerned about an unfair justice system as it pertains to black and brown people, please?

P.S. You don't it the least bit bizarre that you all want understanding and empathy but never give it to anyone else?

 

So now you want to give the guilty SOB a fair trial before you hang him.

 

the flow chart is simple

did congress serve bannon with a subpoena? yes
did bannon show up at the time specified no?
does he have a note from his mother or a competent adult?

but that is not the question, since i would answer defense questions truthfully and thus be disqualified from the jury.

 

What? The thread is about whether Bannon can get a fair trial or not and I totally agree. Unfortunately, the poster went on yammering that they were afraid Bannon would get off. His version of a fair trial is Bannon being found guilty. I'm for a fair trial. Are you?

 

Congress is not a usable word. Democrats have subpoened Bannon for their kangaroo investigation.

 

In your opinion.

Not in fact ... legally ... OR ... in fact.

 

I was not aware he was going to trial? Thanks for the info.

 

Doubtful -- but even if one did find imipartial jury .. the trial will still be unfair for different reasons.

Our lads in Gov't found a work-around to the "Impartial Jury" safeguard .. well a few actually but one in particular .. known as "Jury Instruction" - where the judge directs them "how to vote" based on what they may consider ... and what they may not.

.

 

please. no one is hanging this guy.

yet jury nullification does occur. when did jury instructions become a part of a trial?

hmmmmmm

1 Even then, the answers to jury questions were not always very helpful. In the 1314 case of Abbot of Tewkesbury v. Calewe, a jury was asked to decide whether certain land was “free alms” or “lay fee.”2 They pointed out to the judge, “We are not men of law,” implicitly requesting his assistance.3 The judge replied, “Say what you feel.”4 This is the problem, of course. If a judge does not explain to the jury what it is supposed to do, the jury will do what it feels is best. This is precisely the sort of arbitrary decision making that the rule of law seeks to prevent.

my personal opinion, some laws should be nullified many of the "drug war" ideas are entirely totalitarian - civil forfeiture, no knock warrants and such. if you shoot some one who is breaking your door down without serving the warrant i probably will not convict no matter what the judge instructs.

 

There's no opinion about it. Congress is a term used loosely. Whichever party controls the House, can do whatever the hell they want with a vote of 218-217 so they can issue a subpoena and claim it was from "Congress". You'll understand that better when Republicans gain back control of the House.

 

That is an old sarcastic expression. "Lets give this guilty SOB a fair trial before we hang him". It represents the attitude of the democrats. They appear to have little interest in a fair trial. Their goal is for him to be convicted and to go to prison.

 

Looks like the fair trial idea went out the window...

DC Court will Allow Jan. 6 Committee to Testify Against Steve Bannon — But WILL NOT Allow Steve Bannon to Cross Examine His Accusers

The gist? The government is using evidence from members of the committee, but members of the committee have invoked the speech and debate clause to quash the defendants ability to call them as witnesses. The judge granted that motion to quash. So, basically the members of the committee will be testifying against Bannon, without Bannon having the ability to cross examine them. More interestingly? They made themselves a party to the case when they filed an amicus brief in support of the charges.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ot-allow-steve-bannon-cross-examine-accusers/

And I might as well go ahead and put this on again..

Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt
The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest
Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/
Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).
We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?
https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html
Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right
https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/
Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com comments
Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]
Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]
https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check
Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/
Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/
If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

WRONG

The Show Trial Is a Set-Up: DC Court will Allow Jan. 6 Committee to Testify Against Steve Bannon — But WILL NOT Allow Steve Bannon to Cross Examine His Accusers
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ot-allow-steve-bannon-cross-examine-accusers/

The government is using evidence from members of the committee, but members of the committee have invoked the speech and debate clause to quash the defendants ability to call them as witnesses. The judge granted that motion to quash. So, basically the members of the committee will be testifying against Bannon, without Bannon having the ability to cross examine them. More interestingly? They made themselves a party to the case when they filed an amicus brief in support of the charges.

And the court is allowing the January 6 Committee to use their concocted evidence against Steve Bannon but will not allow Steve Bannon’s team to confront his accusers.

This is the new America under Joe Biden and the Democrat-Socialist regime.

 

I h=guess you are going to need a new civics class

The Show Trial Is a Set-Up: DC Court will Allow Jan. 6 Committee to Testify Against Steve Bannon — But WILL NOT Allow Steve Bannon to Cross Examine His Accusers
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ot-allow-steve-bannon-cross-examine-accusers/

The government is using evidence from members of the committee, but members of the committee have invoked the speech and debate clause to quash the defendants ability to call them as witnesses. The judge granted that motion to quash. So, basically the members of the committee will be testifying against Bannon, without Bannon having the ability to cross examine them. More interestingly? They made themselves a party to the case when they filed an amicus brief in support of the charges.

And the court is allowing the January 6 Committee to use their concocted evidence against Steve Bannon but will not allow Steve Bannon’s team to confront his accusers.

This is the new America under Joe Biden and the Democrat-Socialist regime.

 

The charge is contempt of Congress. If Bannon is shown or proves that he refused to cooperate with the committee on January 6th, he will be found guilty by the jury no matter who they are. The prosecution will ask them questions and the defense will ask them questions. Bannon can suggest to his attorneys' certain questions, but it will be up to his attorneys to ask. But the reality is based on the testimony, did Bannon or did not Bannon comply with the subpoena.

No one who tries to act as his own attorney wins a case like this or any other case.

 

What part of your brain concluded that Bannon can cross examine witnesses, when the judge has ruled he can't cross examine witnesses.
By a jury no matter who they are?
What communist country do you live in?

 

This is why it's impossible to take <whatever you call them> seriously. I can name this song in one note.

Why would Bannon NOT comply the subpoena if they truly believe that the Orange Stain is completely innocent of inciting a riot, election fraud and interference?

 

I understand it fine now. The thing is the Capitol WAS attacked, Bannon HAS knowledge about the attack. The Select Committee IS investigating the attack. Bannon REFUSED to cooperate. BANNON put his ass in a crack for tRaitor tRump. Bannon IS on trial for non-cooperation.

Guess we'll SEE how that works out.

 

Ugh. Why has thou forsaken me?

 

Not a trial. A kangaroo committee that has already ruled Bannon can not cross examine any witnesses against him.
Another fake leftist political theater with no teeth. Just food for the left over 15%ers