Wonderful analogy! Selective prosecution. Totally illegal. Absolutely frightening and a dire warning to the public of what's coming next if things don't get turned around quickly.
You do know that the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, don't you? For you to compare his prison term of 4 months with the Japanese internment is, on its face, horrendously ridiculous. Mr. Bannon is anything but a martyr. Mr. Bannon is in the slammer for one reason, and one reason only: he failed to cooperate with a congressional subpoena. There are consequences for that.
He did not turn up because he took legal advice. The purpose of the committee hearing was to inquire into the content of his phone conversations with President Trump. The content of these conversations is not within the jurisdiction of the legislature as per the Constitution.
True enough: he did take legal advice. Unfortunately, it was poor. Had it been legitimate, SCOTUS would have gladly heard his appeal. The fact remains, they did not. Seriously though, do you believe that Ms. Wolf's comparison of Mr. Bannon's incarceration is anything like the Japanese internment? To throw that in as a defense on Mr. Bannon's behalf only diminishes her argument.
No, it was good advice because he could have been held in contempt for not answering questions and pleading the Fifth Amendment would have been legal but construed politically as proof of Trump's guilt. I do not share your confidence in the Supreme Court. They declined to hear any cases regarding the stolen 2020 election and one of the reasons given for declining to hear the case lodged by Teas was that Texas "lacked standing." Lots of evidence that Chief Justice Roberts was involved with the Epstein circle. As I understand things, Bannon's appeal has yet to be heard by a lower court and SCOTUS simply refused to hear it before sentence was carried out. This is obviously politically motivated, just like the rape accusations against Julian Assange.
I largely disagree with your assertions. Your suggestion that I have confidence in SCOTUS is misplaced; I never said I had confidence. I simply said that they refused to hear his appeal. Your opinion that the election was stolen is just that: your opinion. You're certainly welcome to have it as it is your right; however, the judiciary across the board (some 60 cases) have all fallen into line as did Trump's AG, William Barr. As I recall, he said it was BS. Additionally, a great percentage of his staff agreed, as they had no problem telling the Jan. 6 Committee. Not one scintilla of proof has been brought forward regarding the assertion of a stolen election. Until such proof is brought forward, the fact remains, the election, in fact, was not stolen. All is not lost; however, I do agree that Julian Assange was largely railroaded by an accusation of "rape" and further, his revelations over Wikileaks in my opinion, did a public service. I'm not so naive that I don't believe our government, or for that matter, any government keeps information away from the people that should rightfully be shared. Much of what happened in Iraq for instance, was simply criminal. I understand that; it's precisely that type of criminality that someone like Trump is liable to commit at a far greater risk level than someone on the left of center who I believe will be beholden to a more just obligation to his/her post. This, of course, is also opinion. And like you, I also have a right to mine.
The reason (s) they refused to hear election challenges was ludicrous. If Teas - a state of the Union - lacks standing, then nobody has standing. Texas has the legal right - unlike every other state - to secede and disregarding Teas in this case would have given them the ecse to leave. They have already begun to disregrd SCOTUS rulings, as they did over illegal immigrants earlier this year. The US election was obviously stolen - Trump's vote tallies went down in five staes after ""counting" stopped and the results took weeks to come out. The British Foreign Office and the US state Department say that the obvious signs of a rigged vote (in foreign countries) are the lengthy delay in counting and declaring results.
Are you forgetting that Texas was challenging the outcome in other states and not theirs? Of course, Texas did not have any legal standing. The election had nothing to do with Texas as Texas went for Trump. In other words, the Supremes essentially said: "hey Texas, this isn't your business. Butt out!" Even the Cato institute said so. Basically, that was the translation. I don't see how anyone can believe one state may interfere with another's concerns. There can be an amicus brief in support; however, that is essentially the limit of their involvement. Your assertion about the counting that had "stopped" proves nothing. By your definition, George W. Bush should never have won. The democrats easily could have accused the republicans of stealing; however, the honorable act to take by Gore, was to simply concede instead of putting the nation through exactly what we are now going through. Nation before party - that has been demonstrated exceptionally well by the left. What we see on the republican side is: party before nation. Again, it all boils down to proof. If the right of center has it, then let them provide it. They haven't been able to do so thus far and won't be able to. If by chance they do, then you rightly should expect the left to line up dutifully and offer extensive Mea Culpas.
Wonderful analogy! Selective prosecution. Totally illegal. Absolutely frightening and a dire warning to the public of what's coming next if things don't get turned around quickly.
You do know that the US Supreme Court denied his appeal, don't you? For you to compare his prison term of 4 months with the Japanese internment is, on its face, horrendously ridiculous. Mr. Bannon is anything but a martyr. Mr. Bannon is in the slammer for one reason, and one reason only: he failed to cooperate with a congressional subpoena. There are consequences for that.
He did not turn up because he took legal advice. The purpose of the committee hearing was to inquire into the content of his phone conversations with President Trump. The content of these conversations is not within the jurisdiction of the legislature as per the Constitution.
True enough: he did take legal advice. Unfortunately, it was poor. Had it been legitimate, SCOTUS would have gladly heard his appeal. The fact remains, they did not. Seriously though, do you believe that Ms. Wolf's comparison of Mr. Bannon's incarceration is anything like the Japanese internment? To throw that in as a defense on Mr. Bannon's behalf only diminishes her argument.
No, it was good advice because he could have been held in contempt for not answering questions and pleading the Fifth Amendment would have been legal but construed politically as proof of Trump's guilt. I do not share your confidence in the Supreme Court. They declined to hear any cases regarding the stolen 2020 election and one of the reasons given for declining to hear the case lodged by Teas was that Texas "lacked standing." Lots of evidence that Chief Justice Roberts was involved with the Epstein circle. As I understand things, Bannon's appeal has yet to be heard by a lower court and SCOTUS simply refused to hear it before sentence was carried out. This is obviously politically motivated, just like the rape accusations against Julian Assange.
I largely disagree with your assertions. Your suggestion that I have confidence in SCOTUS is misplaced; I never said I had confidence. I simply said that they refused to hear his appeal. Your opinion that the election was stolen is just that: your opinion. You're certainly welcome to have it as it is your right; however, the judiciary across the board (some 60 cases) have all fallen into line as did Trump's AG, William Barr. As I recall, he said it was BS. Additionally, a great percentage of his staff agreed, as they had no problem telling the Jan. 6 Committee. Not one scintilla of proof has been brought forward regarding the assertion of a stolen election. Until such proof is brought forward, the fact remains, the election, in fact, was not stolen. All is not lost; however, I do agree that Julian Assange was largely railroaded by an accusation of "rape" and further, his revelations over Wikileaks in my opinion, did a public service. I'm not so naive that I don't believe our government, or for that matter, any government keeps information away from the people that should rightfully be shared. Much of what happened in Iraq for instance, was simply criminal. I understand that; it's precisely that type of criminality that someone like Trump is liable to commit at a far greater risk level than someone on the left of center who I believe will be beholden to a more just obligation to his/her post. This, of course, is also opinion. And like you, I also have a right to mine.
Sending best wishes.
The reason (s) they refused to hear election challenges was ludicrous. If Teas - a state of the Union - lacks standing, then nobody has standing. Texas has the legal right - unlike every other state - to secede and disregarding Teas in this case would have given them the ecse to leave. They have already begun to disregrd SCOTUS rulings, as they did over illegal immigrants earlier this year. The US election was obviously stolen - Trump's vote tallies went down in five staes after ""counting" stopped and the results took weeks to come out. The British Foreign Office and the US state Department say that the obvious signs of a rigged vote (in foreign countries) are the lengthy delay in counting and declaring results.
Are you forgetting that Texas was challenging the outcome in other states and not theirs? Of course, Texas did not have any legal standing. The election had nothing to do with Texas as Texas went for Trump. In other words, the Supremes essentially said: "hey Texas, this isn't your business. Butt out!" Even the Cato institute said so. Basically, that was the translation. I don't see how anyone can believe one state may interfere with another's concerns. There can be an amicus brief in support; however, that is essentially the limit of their involvement. Your assertion about the counting that had "stopped" proves nothing. By your definition, George W. Bush should never have won. The democrats easily could have accused the republicans of stealing; however, the honorable act to take by Gore, was to simply concede instead of putting the nation through exactly what we are now going through. Nation before party - that has been demonstrated exceptionally well by the left. What we see on the republican side is: party before nation. Again, it all boils down to proof. If the right of center has it, then let them provide it. They haven't been able to do so thus far and won't be able to. If by chance they do, then you rightly should expect the left to line up dutifully and offer extensive Mea Culpas.