I think she wanted him to answer. She’s the gotcha person in that duo…not him. I’ve never attributed noble motives to Ms. Kelly and I sure as hell saw none in this interview. She’s a master at throwing a fastball right though her subjects ‘sweet spot’ allowing him to hit the tough question out of the park. To redeem himself. That’s her shtick.
As for Bundy’s lame angle the Federal Government was the plaintiff and that’s not legit. JFC!. “Of, By and For the People” is the phrase wingers like to use and that’s who was represented as plaintiff in that courtroom. The People of America and that’s their fucking land these assholes are burning up and stealing from. End of story.
I suspect that Bundy was implying that with the US on one side of any legal matter, the result is a foregone conclusion. He is so in over his head. The United States is pretty much like any other party to a legal action and has to meet its burden of proof; it also loses cases when it fails to do so. A couple of minutes of searching would have told him as much.
Where are the super-obvious follow-ups from Megyn. “So, you don’t recognize the authority of the Supreme Court? Do you think that the founding fathers intended interpretation of the Constitution to be in the hands of each local sheriff? If so, why did they create a Supreme Court in the first place?” Etc., etc.
Can’t argue. But I’d bet I could find consultants who’d tell you that denying these goofs the drama they seek is the way to go, even if it seems lenient. It makes them look like toddlers crying out a tantrum without getting their way.
No, the question is poorly formed and doesn’t have an answer. There is no plaintiff in a criminal case. There is a prosecutor and an accused. In the prosecution of a federal crime the prosecutor is always the United States. Bundy seems to think that this was a civil suit since civil suits have a plaintiff and a defendant. In a civil suit the government can be either plaintiff or defendant depending on who brings the suit. It is a matter of terminology and Bundy apparently doesn’t know the difference between a civil suit and a criminal prosecution.
He may be trying to use a definition in his head that it only applies to civil cases, but the word applies to criminal cases as well, and in such a case the state or federal government is the plaintiff.
And when asked by Kelly if the takeover in Oregon would lead to violence, Bundy said, “It’s not going to come to that.”
The unspoken implication of that statement is; “It’s not going to come to that BECAUSE WE ARE WHITE.”
White Male Privilege in action.
If these guys were black muslims they would be dead or in Guantanamo already.
Bottom line, they view themselves as latter day Captain Moronis and their “righteousness” will enable them to raise a mighty citizens’ army to cause the evil gubmint to back down without a shot being fired. Thus the “we’re peaceful” claim while holding assault rifles. Sadly, that line of reasoning seems to have worked down in Nevada.
There is no “plaintiff” on an appeal (nor in a criminal case). There are appellees and appellants. IOW, in this instance, there were not “plaintiffs” at all. And the appellant (the one asking for relief) in the Supreme Court appeal was not the government, but rather the ranchers. Ammon Bundy is simply legally ignorant.
If the government was as tyrannical as these bozos claim, that building they are occupying would be smoldering rubble by now. They need to get a grip and realize that policies they don’t agree with do not equate to tyranny.
the plaintiff is the federal government," Bundy said in response, adding that there is no “proper redress” for the people in such situations.
Huh?
WTF does that word salad mean?
Does this clown even grasp how criminal charges for the act of serial arson on publicly owned property (and one of the fires they started also burned private property that didn’t belong to them either) works?
