Bannon Indicted by Federal Grand Jury for Contempt of Congress

[daz28]

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

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. 

Just because I accept the reality of what something is doesn't make me for it(pro-).  There's a lot of Republicans who either have selective memories, or are just plain hypocrites calling anything a "Democrat witch hunt".  They obviousy aren't comparing Benghazi(going after top candidate) or Ken Starr(smear job) to anything happening now.  It would be pretty hard to argue that Ken Starr being jealous of other guys getting some was more important than this Jan 6th commission, but it won't stop them from trying.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, daz28 said:

Just because I accept the reality of what something is doesn't make me for it(pro-).  There's a lot of Republicans who either have selective memories, or are just plain hypocrites calling anything a "Democrat witch hunt".  They obviousy aren't comparing Benghazi(going after top candidate) or Ken Starr(smear job) to anything happening now.  It would be pretty hard to argue that Ken Starr being jealous of other guys getting some was more important than this Jan 6th commission, but it won't stop them from trying.  

The only reason I think you’re “for it” is because the dozen or so posts in this thread where you clearly indicate you’re “for it”. 
 

The Benghazi debacle came about because a US ambassador and members of his security detail were murdered on the watch of the Obama administration, the administration cooked up a story as to the root cause of the attack which was quickly revealed to be false, and the Secretary of State was directly responsible for overseeing the safety of the ambassador.  
 

You’re comparing that to a political committee targeting individuals looking for, in your words, cool Christmas presents that may or may not exist?  To targeting a guy who does a podcast?  Law enforcement has a virtually unlimited number of options to investigate all of this, and the political capital to run with it.  Yet…

 

I was not in favor of the Starr investigation, I was a bit more liberal minded in those days and saw it as a political witch hunt.  As that morphed into Clinton’s escapades with Lewinsky and his perjury charges, coupled with Hillary’s attack on the women he victimized, I thought it was a waste of time.  I’ve come to realize Clinton’s hubris was his undoing, he viewed himself as the smartest person in the planet and exposed his throat to his enemies.  In the end, however, it was irrelevant as his wife went on to be the flag bearer of the dem party, the heir apparent to a new class of stunningly hypocritical woke voters.  
 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Bannon did not enter a plea during the brief hearing before Washington D.C. Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather.

 

He was released without bail but is required to check in weekly with officials.

 

 

 

[daz28]

On 11/16/2021 at 6:54 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The only reason I think you’re “for it” is because the dozen or so posts in this thread where you clearly indicate you’re “for it”. 
 

The Benghazi debacle came about because a US ambassador and members of his security detail were murdered on the watch of the Obama administration, the administration cooked up a story as to the root cause of the attack which was quickly revealed to be false, and the Secretary of State was directly responsible for overseeing the safety of the ambassador.  
 

You’re comparing that to a political committee targeting individuals looking for, in your words, cool Christmas presents that may or may not exist?  To targeting a guy who does a podcast?  Law enforcement has a virtually unlimited number of options to investigate all of this, and the political capital to run with it.  Yet…

 

I was not in favor of the Starr investigation, I was a bit more liberal minded in those days and saw it as a political witch hunt.  As that morphed into Clinton’s escapades with Lewinsky and his perjury charges, coupled with Hillary’s attack on the women he victimized, I thought it was a waste of time.  I’ve come to realize Clinton’s hubris was his undoing, he viewed himself as the smartest person in the planet and exposed his throat to his enemies.  In the end, however, it was irrelevant as his wife went on to be the flag bearer of the dem party, the heir apparent to a new class of stunningly hypocritical woke voters.  
 

 

You're confusing "for its".  I'm not pro dirty politics(not for it), but I am for knowing all the facts(for it).  I made that clear.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

You're confusing "for its".  I'm not pro dirty politics(not for it), but I am for knowing all the facts(for it).  I made that clear.  

I don’t think you made that clear at all.  When I asked you what documents and statements Bannon and Meadows were bringing to the table, you suggested the impact for D politicians was akin to opening Christmas presents to see if there was anything good in the box.   You acknowledged the tribunal was a political endeavor, you certainly had the option to reveal that the committee was always and only about truth, justice and facts wherever they lead.  You didn’t, probably in part because you know it to be patently false, partly because no one likes to feel that dirty even on an anonymous internet site.  We are not animale, right?
 

It’s a witch hunt.  A fishing expedition.  A political event.  That’s the facts, and now you know.  
 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Lucy is going to pull the football out from under Chuck and Nancy once again …but it won’t stop them from trying to kick it. Trump is so inside their tiny political heads that they’ll still be screaming out his name from inside the insane asylum. It’s a shame really. 

[daz28]

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

I don’t think you made that clear at all.  When I asked you what documents and statements Bannon and Meadows were bringing to the table, you suggested the impact for D politicians was akin to opening Christmas presents to see if there was anything good in the box.   You acknowledged the tribunal was a political endeavor, you certainly had the option to reveal that the committee was always and only about truth, justice and facts wherever they lead.  You didn’t, probably in part because you know it to be patently false, partly because no one likes to feel that dirty even on an anonymous internet site.  We are not animale, right?
 

It’s a witch hunt.  A fishing expedition.  A political event.  That’s the facts, and now you know.  
 

 

I just want to hear what they find, aka the facts.  Are you saying I shouldn't, because it takes political theater to obtain it?  It's like you're placing the sins of the politicians squarely on me.  Just some internet guy with zero ability to assuage anything.  If people testify and present documents, I don't have any problem with looking at them and listening.  Next time I'm Speaker of The House though, you can be assured I'll run it with a lot more integrity.  Also, we've established both sides do the same political stunts, but now you're choosing to only blame what you contend to be "my side".  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 hours ago, daz28 said:

I just want to hear what they find, aka the facts.  Are you saying I shouldn't, because it takes political theater to obtain it?  It's like you're placing the sins of the politicians squarely on me.  Just some internet guy with zero ability to assuage anything.  If people testify and present documents, I don't have any problem with looking at them and listening.  Next time I'm Speaker of The House though, you can be assured I'll run it with a lot more integrity.  Also, we've established both sides do the same political stunts, but now you're choosing to only blame what you contend to be "my side".  

The facts of the investigation into 1/6 are best determined through a non-partisan criminal investigation, not by people with a vested interest in political innuendo, grandstanding, selective leaking, media manipulation and an insatiable thirst for power.   
 

Also, it’s my humble opinion that you’ll never be Speaker of the House if you run on the integrity platform.  

[716er]

bump