Bannon Indicted by Federal Grand Jury for Contempt of Congress

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, daz28 said:

If you can read and understand like you claim, then you'll know that I was very clear this is an investigation by the House for legislative reasons, and not a matter for "law enforcement".  The reason he will be begging for immunity won't be because he fears criminal prosecution for what they may find, but for the fact that he has ALREADY committed the crime of contempt of Congress.  It's up to the committee(and DOJ) if they want to drop it now if he agrees to give testimony.  He can't simply just show up now, and say, "sorry drop that charge i didn't mean it".  That's not how the law works.  Steve Bannon is simply being used as an example for others not to test the committee's patience.  The'yre playing 3D legal chess, and apparently you, and a lot of other people still don't see the moves.  The executive privilege thing is CERTAIN to fail(precedent), and now pretending they can avoid contempt is no longer an option.  I'm not naive.  I know the goal of the Democrats isn't to prosecute or legislate, or any of that nonsense.  It's to bring the facts to light, which will hurt the Reuplican's politically.  Even though the tribunal is indeed a farce, it carries political weight, and it was their own mistake to follow the orange doofus into the trap, even though it was largely unavoidable.  That's the Republican politician's achilles heel is that they're doomed if they stick with him, or if they go against him.  We'll see how much of this is my imagination.

 

Apparently, Meadows got his warning shortly after Bannon got his 2 count indictment.  Just read that.

The imagination comment had nothing to do with the political spectacle unfolding, and perhaps Bannon goes to jail for contempt of Congress (the list is long for those who have contempt for the institution), rolls over, and fesses up to leaving the side window at the Capitol unlocked and takes responsibility for the incomprehensible lack of security and police presence that (or any) day.   In my opinion, the wrong questions are being asked, but it serves the appetite for grist from the mill. 
 

If so, or if a criminal case can reasonably prosecuted in a non partisan fashion, I’ll gladly stand beside you and cheer Bannon’s incarceration.  
 

In the meantime, you seem to be of the opinion that no one else can see what amounts to a political spectacle of the scorched earth variety.  Not all that long ago, your crew attempted the public evisceration of a man with 30 years of dedicated public service with the same sort of innuendo, distortions and media manipulation.  His crime was he held different political views and was nominate by the wrong President.  For his crime(s), complete and utter destruction of his reputation in front of his wife and two daughters, and when he defended himself as any of us should, he was labeled as unstable.  
 

Theres no denying it can work, for her attempts to destroy Kavanaugh, a wildly unpopular presidential candidate was given the 2 nd most powerful seat in the land. 
 

Oops—I broke the 10 month rule.  
 

So, my simple assertion is that while you use those long arms of yours to pat yourself on the back, you’ve hardly cracked the DaVinci Code. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well said. What I find interesting is that they impeached Trump for supposedly looking into the truly corrupt dealings of his rival on a phone call. But this ‘committee’ can look into the dirty dealings of their rivals to the point where they can indict citizens who don’t go along with it. Washington is a mess! What this committee SHOULD be looking into is how security failed at the Capitol that day. Unfortunately, they’re not the least bit interested…why? 

Well, one theory is that in the face of evidence there would be a very large and potentially violent crowd of protesters that day a decision was made to not augment security and leave a standard security detail in place at the Capitol in order to allow or trigger a rather uneventful "riot" to occur that resulted in no loss of life or physical harm to anyone of consequence in order to use the chaos of the event as pretext for justifying the issuing some draconian restrictions on opposition political activity and free speech. 

[unbillievable]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well, one theory is that in the face of evidence there would be a very large and potentially violent crowd of protesters that day a decision was made to not augment security and leave a standard security detail in place at the Capitol in order to allow or trigger a rather uneventful "riot" to occur that resulted in no loss of life or physical harm to anyone of consequence in order to use the chaos of the event as pretext for justifying the issuing some draconian restrictions on opposition political activity and free speech. 

 

I still find it hilarious that they took the time to scatter BLANK pieces of paper on the floor of the parlimentarian's office to stage a riot scene.

 

So the "rioters" were angry enough to break the door, but leave everything untouched, with stacks of files still organized in neat piles on desk tops?

 

 

[daz28]

10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ha! “The goal of the Democrats is to bring the facts to light”…hilarious. No it’s not! You must be terribly naive. (By the way, it wouldn’t be the goal of the Republicans if the shoe was on the other foot. There’s one goal here: Do as much damage as possible to your past, present, and future political rival for the Presidency. Period! 

It's a goal, but not the end goal.  The testimony will be under oath, so the facts will be out, but I made clear in another post the politcal thater is for the Democrats gain.  That we agree on.

7 hours ago, unbillievable said:

 

I still find it hilarious that they took the time to scatter BLANK pieces of paper on the floor of the parlimentarian's office to stage a riot scene.

 

So the "rioters" were angry enough to break the door, but leave everything untouched, with stacks of files still organized in neat piles on desk tops?

 

 

Please elaborate?  Is there video of them staging the scene, or could it possibly be copy paper??  Asking seriously, not being snarky.  

[daz28]

8 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The imagination comment had nothing to do with the political spectacle unfolding, and perhaps Bannon goes to jail for contempt of Congress (the list is long for those who have contempt for the institution), rolls over, and fesses up to leaving the side window at the Capitol unlocked and takes responsibility for the incomprehensible lack of security and police presence that (or any) day.   In my opinion, the wrong questions are being asked, but it serves the appetite for grist from the mill. 
 

If so, or if a criminal case can reasonably prosecuted in a non partisan fashion, I’ll gladly stand beside you and cheer Bannon’s incarceration.  
 

In the meantime, you seem to be of the opinion that no one else can see what amounts to a political spectacle of the scorched earth variety.  Not all that long ago, your crew attempted the public evisceration of a man with 30 years of dedicated public service with the same sort of innuendo, distortions and media manipulation.  His crime was he held different political views and was nominate by the wrong President.  For his crime(s), complete and utter destruction of his reputation in front of his wife and two daughters, and when he defended himself as any of us should, he was labeled as unstable.  
 

Theres no denying it can work, for her attempts to destroy Kavanaugh, a wildly unpopular presidential candidate was given the 2 nd most powerful seat in the land. 
 

Oops—I broke the 10 month rule.  
 

So, my simple assertion is that while you use those long arms of yours to pat yourself on the back, you’ve hardly cracked the DaVinci Code. 

What's the 10 month rule?

 

Are you ok with the charges against Bannon?  It's kind of a slam dunk case, because he literally did exactly what they say.  I'm a little disturbed that in this war of politics a lot of people are going to end up in jail.  The only saving grace is most of them will be slimebags, who knew the risks going in.  The sad part is they will crucify anyone who attempts to end the whole political charade, leaving us with perma-political war, and a hopeless future for our country. 

8 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well, one theory is that in the face of evidence there would be a very large and potentially violent crowd of protesters that day a decision was made to not augment security and leave a standard security detail in place at the Capitol in order to allow or trigger a rather uneventful "riot" to occur that resulted in no loss of life or physical harm to anyone of consequence in order to use the chaos of the event as pretext for justifying the issuing some draconian restrictions on opposition political activity and free speech. 

A large group of Kyle "good" Rittencehouses could have had the same effect

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

What's the 10 month rule?

 

Are you ok with the charges against Bannon?  It's kind of a slam dunk case, because he literally did exactly what they say.  I'm a little disturbed that in this war of politics a lot of people are going to end up in jail.  The only saving grace is most of them will be slimebags, who knew the risks going in.  The sad part is they will crucify anyone who attempts to end the whole political charade, leaving us with perma-political war, and a hopeless future for our country. 

A large group of Kyle "good" Rittencehouses could have had the same effect

 

I’m neutral on the charges.  I’m a realist, the party in power pushes forward on issues they know appeals to their base, the party out of power resists.  The party in power would object to the other party proceeding on the same grounds and so on.  I think if you look at the charges filed, and the reaction to them as some sort of grand purity test, you’re naive.      I believe Bannon should fight, argue, condemn, litigate, trash talk and do anything in his power to resist.   Why?   That’s what those people do.  Plus, it appeals to his base, whatever that might be, just like the political charade appeals to you. 
 

Were you ok with the public disembowelment of Brett Kavanaugh?  It was a slam dunk obvious that it was a case of innuendo, manipulation, and character assassination. 

[daz28]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m neutral on the charges.  I’m a realist, the party in power pushes forward on issues they know appeals to their base, the party out of power resists.  The party in power would object to the other party proceeding on the same grounds and so on.  I think if you look at the charges filed, and the reaction to them as some sort of grand purity test, you’re naive.      I believe Bannon should fight, argue, condemn, litigate, trash talk and do anything in his power to resist.   Why?   That’s what those people do.  Plus, it appeals to his base, whatever that might be, just like the political charade appeals to you. 
 

Were you ok with the public disembowelment of Brett Kavanaugh?  It was a slam dunk obvious that it was a case of innuendo, manipulation, and character assassination. 

Bannon don't have a case though.  There will be zero juries, that the statute will be described to, that won't convict him.  His best option is to ask for it to be dropped if he complies rapido.  The other options aren't good, and I still don't buy into threat there's enough coup-laid drinkers out there to vault all these convicted criminals into the political startosphere.  OAN and Newsmax would consider them martyrs, but even they aren't gonna want America's most wanted DC edition on their prime time slot every night.  These people are going to have to give up the documents, and testify.  ALL of them like it or lump it.  

 

As for Kavanaugh, which is irrelevant(man crush?), I blame the media, and I rarely blame the media, because they don't make anyone dumb, they were born that way.  The accusations should have been followed up much better by the FBI, and given whatever time they needed.  THEN they should have proceeded with the hearings AFTER he was cleared.  He didn't need to be pushed through like poop thru a goose. 

  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, daz28 said:

Bannon don't have a case though.  There will be zero juries, that the statute will be described to, that won't convict him.  His best option is to ask for it to be dropped if he complies rapido.  The other options aren't good, and I still don't buy into threat there's enough coup-laid drinkers out there to vault all these convicted criminals into the political startosphere.  OAN and Newsmax would consider them martyrs, but even they aren't gonna want America's most wanted DC edition on their prime time slot every night.  These people are going to have to give up the documents, and testify.  ALL of them like it or lump it.  

 

As for Kavanaugh, which is irrelevant(man crush?), I blame the media, and I rarely blame the media, because they don't make anyone dumb, they were born that way.  The accusations should have been followed up much better by the FBI, and given whatever time they needed.  THEN they should have proceeded with the hearings AFTER he was cleared.  He didn't need to be pushed through like poop thru a goose. 

  

Bannon isn’t prosecuting a case, silly.   He’s the target of a political operation, we’ve already agreed on that.  I think we’ve agreed that he may ultimately be held accountable for his contempt of Congress, perhaps including going to jail.  Finally, I think we agree that outside dog n pony Washington politics, if Bannon engaged in criminal activity leading up to the criminal events on 1/6, he should be held accountable.
 

Beyond that, I have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to injuries, OAN and Newsmax. 

What, in your view, does it look like when Bannon complies? 
 

Now, you’ve mentioned the committee actions and request for testimony, documents and truth.  What documents do Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows have in their possession that have apparently eluded federal, state or local law enforcement agencies to this point? Please, be specific.

 

As for the Kavanaugh case, I wanted to get some sense of your standards as it related to other partisan political operations.  Thanks for the reply. 

[SoCal Deek]

If I understand this correctly Bannon isn’t accused of anything other than resisting a congressional inquiry. He isn’t being indicted for anything that happened on, or leading up to, January 6th. At some point, somebody’s going to have to stand up to these politically motivated congressional hearings. I guess Bannon decided that now’s the time. I have no problem with it. If he crosses the line and is found to be destroying evidence like Hilary did…that’s where I have a problem.

[Sherlock Holmes]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:50 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

CNN and MSNBC commentators are already declaring that legal due process isn't required and Bannon will be sentenced tomorrow to 3,000 years in prison while encouraging the administration to apply water boarding and other torture methods to force a confession.  Up next CNN praises President Xi's proclamation at the party Congress making him President for life followed by an NBC news humanitarian story of the Taliban preparing Thanksgiving meals for the homeless and a concerning MSNBC story from Joy Reid about Satanic worshiping White Supremist Trump supporters seen sacrificing animals and drinking their blood on video taken during the 1/6 protests.  Meanwhile, Brandon has been sited wandering across the White House lawn after his standard 5 hour afternoon nap.   

What flavor ice cream was Brandon holding?

[B-Man]

 

 

Where are the posts ??

 

 

[Tiberius]

So inciting a riot to overthrow the election and kill politicians is a crime, how wild 

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Where are the posts ??

 

 

This the same jail Trump

had Epstein murdered in? 

[BillStime]

A call for violence.... Bonnie, please get this message out to the cult ATOP.  

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Hysterical

 

 

Follow the money

[Chef Jim]

33 minutes ago, BillStime said:

A call for violence.... Bonnie, please get this message out to the cult ATOP.  

 

 

 

 

 

Lying again I see.  

 

 

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So inciting a riot to overthrow the election and kill politicians is a crime, how wild 

This the same jail Trump

had Epstein murdered in? 

 

 

Wow, not just around the bend, but a few miles downstream.......😂

 

 

27 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Hysterical

 

 

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So inciting a riot to overthrow the election and kill politicians is a crime, how wild 

This the same jail Trump

had Epstein murdered in? 

Overthrow an election? Is that even the correct terminology? Please get your trigger phrases straight and then get back to us. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/14/2021 at 7:27 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Bannon isn’t prosecuting a case, silly.   He’s the target of a political operation, we’ve already agreed on that.  I think we’ve agreed that he may ultimately be held accountable for his contempt of Congress, perhaps including going to jail.  Finally, I think we agree that outside dog n pony Washington politics, if Bannon engaged in criminal activity leading up to the criminal events on 1/6, he should be held accountable.
 

Beyond that, I have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to injuries, OAN and Newsmax. 

What, in your view, does it look like when Bannon complies? 
 

Now, you’ve mentioned the committee actions and request for testimony, documents and truth.  What documents do Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows have in their possession that have apparently eluded federal, state or local law enforcement agencies to this point? Please, be specific.

 

As for the Kavanaugh case, I wanted to get some sense of your standards as it related to other partisan political operations.  Thanks for the reply. 

@daz28  we were having a civil conversation on Mr. Bannon and the Democrat beacon shining the light of truth on what happened on 1/6.  Then, you were gone.  
 

What is Bannon and/or Meadows going to produce to bring down the Rs?  What truths shall they reveal that have you so revved up?   
 

 

 

[daz28]

40 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@daz28  we were having a civil conversation on Mr. Bannon and the Democrat beacon shining the light of truth on what happened on 1/6.  Then, you were gone.  
 

What is Bannon and/or Meadows going to produce to bring down the Rs?  What truths shall they reveal that have you so revved up?   
 

 

 

Christmas is coming up, so let's use that analogy.  How do you know what's in the gift box before you open it?  Maybe we will find out that they knew there was nothing in the election fraud box. but peddled the conspiracy anyways.  Politics is a dirty business, but undermining democracy by creating a false election fraud narrative, followed by legislation that will alter outcomes isn't dirty politics, it's a threat to all we hold sacred.  Lewandowski came out as saying Trump KNEW he lost, but made the claim anyways.  So if he testified to that under oath, and we find out Trump did indeed try many ways to undo the election anyways, is that a crime?  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

47 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Christmas is coming up, so let's use that analogy.  How do you know what's in the gift box before you open it?  Maybe we will find out that they knew there was nothing in the election fraud box. but peddled the conspiracy anyways.  Politics is a dirty business, but undermining democracy by creating a false election fraud narrative, followed by legislation that will alter outcomes isn't dirty politics, it's a threat to all we hold sacred.  Lewandowski came out as saying Trump KNEW he lost, but made the claim anyways.  So if he testified to that under oath, and we find out Trump did indeed try many ways to undo the election anyways, is that a crime?  

This sounds dramatic enough, with “undermining democracy”, “peddled…conspiracy” and wondering aloud about thought crimes that have yet to occur.  It means nothing.  Still, you’re clearly pro-tribunal and pro-dirty politics, and you don’t seem to have any idea what it is that they plan to find.  I’m not surprised, of course, because they haven’t said what they expect to find when interviewing Bannon, Meadows or anyone else.   They use the same nonsensical  argument over and over and over, and that is “We’re going to dig, speculate, leak and manipulate the American people because we can….”.  
 

If history is any indication, it won’t be too long before you’re humming along with the inevitable “If they have nothing to hide, they should just submit”.  There’s nothing sacred about that.  
 

Oh, and where was your moral high ground when dem leaders ran the grift on Trump stealing the election, or staging his coup when he beat Clinton?  You don’t have to be their rube, Dazzy. 

Almost forgot—thank you for the honest reply.  I disagree with all of it but I appreciate the time spent. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by leh-nerd skin-erd