advertisement


Post-Trump: III (decline, further tantrums, legal proceedings, book deals etc)


Beau on the Jan 6th hearing. He’s bang on and what he says applies equally to the Tory MPs here that so regularly lined up to debase themselves covering the lies and corruption of Johnson’s leadership. It’s all the same shit. The people considering voting Republican or Conservative again really need to ask themselves some very serious questions about who exactly they are voting for and how that reflects on them personally as voters given what we now know as fact.
 
rbrown said:
Think so, he’s really pissed off the judge, so that’s a good sign. He can get a max of a year for each charge. So possibly 2 years.
Click to expand...
Good, good. Hope they can come up with a way to slap on extra time for bad behaviour.
 
PsB said:
Excellent news. Any hope of a prison sentence?
Click to expand...

He's definitely going to jail. Guilty of 2 counts each of which has a mandatory minimum of 30 days and maximum of one year. So minimum is 30 days if served concurrently. Legal twitter seems to think 6 months to a year in total seems most likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
zarniwoop said:
Why is sentencing delayed until October? It’s a simple case - surely the judge can come to a decision sooner than that?
Click to expand...

There is a bunch of pre-sentencing reports and possibly hearings to be done before the sentence. Stuff you don't want to do until there is actually a guilty verdict. This is especially true for a first offender like Bannon where the court will not have a bunch of background from previous cases it can rely on.

BTW He will also almost certainly appeal. He basically offered no defense and a lot of what was said in court was apparently about setting up grounds for appeal. Although this has a slim chance of success and he was relying on the judge making a mistake.

Note IANAL but have watched all seasons of The Good Wife.
 
I’m not familiar with the appeal process in the US, but in the UK you only get to appeal on limited grounds - basically that something went wrong with the original hearing. If you don’t offer a meaningful defence, you don’t get to re-litigate with different arguments in an appeal.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I’m not familiar with the appeal process in the US, but in the UK you only get to appeal on limited grounds - basically that something went wrong with the original hearing. If you don’t offer a meaningful defence, you don’t get to re-litigate with different arguments in an appeal.
Click to expand...
Similar here, though an appeals court can find the original trial defective enough that they send it back to the original court for a do-over.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I’m not familiar with the appeal process in the US, but in the UK you only get to appeal on limited grounds - basically that something went wrong with the original hearing. If you don’t offer a meaningful defence, you don’t get to re-litigate with different arguments in an appeal.
Click to expand...

He's not suggesting he is going to come up with new evidence or arguments on appeal it's going to be about arguing the judges rulings on his case were wrong. Hence he didn't offer a defence and instead did a bunch of manouvering to get the judge to say things he can then challenge on appeal. It's something to do with relying on the advice of counsel and the legal definition of "willfulness" from a decision in 1961.

At least that's the plan. Although it sounds sketchy because it is sketchy and AFAICT reflects the fact that he didn't really have a defence other than to somehow argue that the process was illegitimate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top