Posted on 09/04/2022 7:36:00 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
A federal judge on Friday denied Steve Bannon’s request for a new trial and dismissal in the contempt of Congress case.
“In the end, defendant offers little to demonstrate that the actual testimony be would elicit would have been material to the issues at trial. That falls short of his burden,” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee wrote.
"Defendant also argues that his rights “to confrontation, to effective counsel, and to a fair trial” were also denied. But these arguments are underdeveloped. Defendant never explains the governing legal test for these theories, nor explains how the facts of his case apply given that governing framework,” the judge wrote.
Judge Nichols also presided over the trial against Steve Bannon in July.
Bannon is facing up to two years in prison.
Sentencing is set for October 21.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
It’s gone past ridiculous.
Manafort goes to prison for the same exact things that the Podesta brothers had been doing for years. They were allowed to amend their taxes backdate paperwork and nothing.
Same judge, same result.
I remember that.
“Wow! How disappointing to Bannon.”
I disagree. It sounds to me that the judge is telling Bannon and his counsel that they need to do more to flesh out their positions.
The judge did not state that their claims have no merit. The judge states that their arguments are inadequate.
This is common in a great many legal cases where the judge tells a party that their argument is inadequate. Insufficient. Not that it is without merit.
In other words, go back and do your homework.
Same judge, same result.
No kidding.
Shouldn’t he have recused himself, from the motion hearing?
🤷♀️
Yeah, no vested interest or bias in the result, either. /sarc
The idea that judges these days are apolitical and honorable is not remotely true. And to guard against it, no judge should be in a position to decide things about a trial they presided over. Nor decide appeals about a trial they presided over. Nor their buddies. Or guys that owe them money, etc.
In the end, defendant offers little to demonstrate that the actual testimony be would elicit would have been material to the issues at trial.
You have no standing
Let me see where did I hear that before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.