131 thoughts on “Karma is a Bitch!

  1. Relax, Bannon already planned for an appeal before the trial even began because the judge disallowed any defense. The defense didn’t even argue in court letting it go to speed up the appeal process.
    In any case, it’s a trivial case that doesn’t really have very stiff penalty. Bannon will probably laugh it off if nothing else and do weekends at the low risk resort and be a martyr.


    1. There was no defense because there is no defense since the judge did not allow spurious defenses. He was not about to turn his court room into a clown show for a jackass.

      The case was very straight forward…
      Did Mr. Bannon receive a legally issued subpoena? Yes.
      Was Mr. Bannon of sound mind and did he understand the subpoena? Yes
      Did Mr. Bannon comply with that subpoena? No.

      The jury took less than three hours.

      You call it a trivial case. I disagree. There is an important principle on trial here. No one is above the law and the idea that anybody can simply ignore the law is unacceptable. As I understand it, Mr. Bannon is facing up to 2 years in prison. He should get it all. I am no lawyer but in my humble opinion he has ZERO chance of a successful appeal given the flagrant and public nature of his crimes. But, our system is slow. And he has money. Maybe he hopes to die before he has to don his orange jumper.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. I guess you are joking. Again. Or are you really dumb enough to believe that the Select Committee is “unlawfully contrived.”

          But, in case you are that dumb, the Select Committee was created and empowered by a majority vote in the House of Representatives…


          Of course, you people are more interested in trolling this sort of nonsense than in you are discussing the reasons why the people closest to Donald Trump would rather go to jail than tell what they know. Here is a hint – they have something to hide and fear something much worse than 2 years in jail.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The majority broke its own rules of over 100 years to create a committee with no minority party representation.

            Passing legislation to impose a judicial penalty by majority vote is a Bill of Attainder.

            Redefining a crime after the fact on order to make legal acts illegal or to take away Constitutional rights is an ex post facto law.

            The Constitution provides for protection aganst politically contrived kangaroo courts.


          2. “The majority broke its own rules of over 100 years t”…

            Rules, not laws.

            Elections have consequences, as you often remind others.

            McCarthy changed his mind about a non-partisan commission after he was told by someone higher up in the party not to go along with it. And that same higher up has recently said it was a mistake for McCarthy not to go along.

            THere is no “judicial penalty” that can be imposed by Congress. Referring it to the DOJ was te oky recourse. ANd even then, they don’t have to do that.

            Every time you attempt to claim the committee is illegitimate or illegal, I will remind you of how wrong you are. By using facts and not right wing talking points.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The GOP has done the same kind of crap. And the GOP has already teed up ACTUAL bogus investigations if they retake the House. They will prove they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, focusing on revenge instead of the country. At least the Dems have actually passed legislation in the House.

            Don’t preach to me about “precedents” SCOTUS just proved they don’t mean a thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “The majority broke its …”

            OMG are you full of shit or what!

            1. The Rules of the House give the Speaker the power to appoint members of a Select Committee.
            2. She can take advice but does not have to.
            3. No minority representation? Liz Cheney is the driving force of this Committee.
            4. There will be NO “judicial penalty” imposed by this Committee.
            5. What “ex post facto” law are you raving about?
            6. Besides, IF there is prosecution it will be by the DOJ based on existing law.
            7. Kangaroo court? Simply absurd. Not even a court.

            The Select Committee is a legally chartered Committee with a legal delegation of subpoena powers from the House of Representatives. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro think they are above the law. They are not. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. So? Who sets the rules?
            Bannon’s crime was not set by the committee. Subpoenas have the force of law all on their own. You can show up and declare the 5th 100 times, but you have to show up.

            It is pretty evident that norms are not enough in today’s political climate. Trump tried to circumvent the tradition of concession and the peaceful transition of power in favor of an ongoing campaign of over 7 years now to discredit American elections.

            So far, this has resulted in revamping the Electoral Vote Act so there is no ambiguity, regardless of Eastman’s admitted bogus legal posturing and efforts to find some. And, importantly, to allow for contested objections, but with a higher standard than just a single member of the House and a single member of the Senate.

            And this is the point. To find out the how’s, why’s and what’s that led to and resulted in a violent attack on Congress to shore up our laws to make up for norms that failed.
            And, if in that investigation, laws are found to have been broken, then refer to the DOJ for further action.

            Pretty simple really. Unless someone is not wanting facts to emerge.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. None of that is in any way relevant to the charges against Bannon.

            The dates on the subpoenas issued were unrealistic, and knowingly so. There were legal issues still before the courts concerning what was and was not protected. Negotiations on what would be delivered and when were underway when the dates passed. Those negotiations were apparently not in good faith and the indictment came while negotiations were ongoing.

            The judge in this case did not allow the jury to be informed on those issues. The abuse of process ongoing in handling of everything related to J6 is pure Gestapo behavior and will be investigated in time.

            BTW, there has been another suicide by a J6 defendant who has been held without bail for 18 months without trial on a charge that at most would support a 6 month sentence.

            The precedent for weaponizing the DOJ has been set, and those who have conducted these abuses should consider retirement someplace where we cannot extradite them come Jan 25.


          7. Bannon had not had executive privilege since he left the Trump campaign and administration years ago.

            The case was not about anything more than did he or did he not ignore the subpoenas.

            He did, case closed.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. Depends on whether or not the negotiations by Bannon’s lawyers were in good faith.

            It is literally a “nothing burger” case that Bannon was probably trying to make a political case out of.

            The law says you are under penalty of law to appear. He didn’t appear. Pretty cut and dried.

            He did not have to answer questions about anything if he didn’t want to. But he did have to show up.

            Now he did show up for his trial, however.

            Congressional oversight is the law. The Trump administration ignored virtually everything requested or ordered for carrying out the oversight. The president might get away with that, but you or I can’t.

            And neither can Bannon.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Nonetheless, it is not normal to indict someone while a contested subpoena is before the courts and it is most certainly not normal for a judge to not allow the defense to point that out to the jury.


          10. At some point, Congress has to enforce its subpoena powers otherwise getting testimony is impossible. As stated elsewhere, plenty of others were subpoenaed and they had no problems complying.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Then you end negotiations and set a reasonable date for compliance.

            But remember that there is a election coming. The precedent for one sided committee investigations and abuse of process has been established. It might come back to bite in lots of places.

            I personally hope the GOP takes the high road, but I would suggest Pelosi’s husband start getting his insider trading records together.


          12. Benghazi set the standard for unending investigation for pure political purposes.

            Republicans admitted that they were specifically designed to hurt Clinton and not investigate the attack on Benghazi.

            So quickly you sweep that under the political rug.

            The irony is that at first Benghazi was attributed to a protest gotten out of hand. But after a few days it came out that it was planned.

            Same as 1/6. Both attacks on American soil, only here it was by domestic terrorists orchestrated by the Trump administration toadies and losers.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Negotiations, if any, for what? Which chair cushion to use while invoking the Fifth?

            Cipollone, who had a lot more to negotiate than Bannon ever had, showed up with a week’s notice no problem.

            Bannon’s exhortations the night before 1/6, “all hell’s going to break loose” needed clarification, but we’ll see. There is already strong evidence that both he and Stone had very close relations to Proud Boys and Oathkeepers. Stone even took the first level of oaths to be a member as shown in a video of the ceremony.

            Liked by 2 people

          14. THe subpoena, which you claim was illegal, was issued by the Committee. The refusal is being prosecuted by the DOJ.

            All legal. All within the framework of the Rule of Law. A rule you seem to ignore when members of your tribe (your words, not mine) are found to be wanting.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to confront the witnesses against you.

            Please explain, with the limits the judge imposed on the defense, how that right was respected in Bannons’ trial?


          16. There is a difference between confronting witnesses and turning a legitimate judicial proceeding into a circus. The judge know this and controlled his courtroom in a manner consistent with judicial propriety.

            Bannon’s plan all along was to attempt to talk about irrelevant facts and not defend his refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena. HIs claims of “executive privilege” were bogus from the jump. He was no longer part of the administration at the time and executive privilege became the domain of Biden long before the subpoenas were issued.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “Whether those claims were legitimate or not was under judicial review at the time of the indictment. Bannnon will win on appeal.”

            No, they were not. There is nothing to review until a claim of privilege is made. And that is not a blanket privilege against subpoena or against appearing. It has to be invoked on a question by question basis.

            You keep repeating that Bannon’s privilege status was under judicial review when he was indicted. I keep telling you that is false. One of us is wrong. I cannot prove a negative, so either prove you claim or drop it.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “Note that Amerling. . .”

            This link does not confirm your claim that Bannon was indicted while his privilege status was under review. Period.
            The next time you make that spurious claim you will be lying – not “mistaken.”

            Your saying that the “negotiations” were “under court supervision” is more bullshit. There were no negotiations and no court supervision. Just a totally bogus claim of Executive Privilege and a letter back saying that it was bogus and that the hard deadline of October 14th stood. He did not appear on the 14th so he was notified on Oct 15th that he would face prosecution. The indictment came in November.

            Bannon was given every chance. He was defiant. Now he will learn the truth of the adage – Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. “ The committee heard nothing from Bannon until after the first deadline had passed, at which point his lawyer sent a letter to the committee stating that Bannon was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege and would not be providing documents or appearing.”

            So the Bannon waited until after he ignored the subpoena to raise the executive privilege defense.

            I think that is your “after the fact” issue you wrote. In which case, Bannon couldn’t have it both ways.

            Liked by 2 people

          20. So, executive privilege only applies to paid advisors?

            Take care that legalities do not obliterate principles. Executive privilege exists so that the President’s advisors will feel free to offer him all alternatives, including those that would be career enders in leaked.


          21. How does that change the principle of executive privilege?

            Should not the President’s advisors feel safe to offer unpopular alternatives or not?

            DO you want President’s making decisions on partial information?


          22. Nixon erased tapes of advice from Halderman. Trump stole and tore up government documents, erased logs, used other’s cell phones.

            The President works for us. Everything he does or says is archived. If it is sensitive military or trade deals they will have some protection for a while , but not destroyed.

            Bannon was a buddy, not on the payroll. And he was not an attorney with client privileges. Plus Trump waived EP even though there was none. Most of us can see a con job.

            Liked by 2 people

          23. Executive privilege is separate from attorney client privilege.

            Its purpose is to free his advisors to offer even very unpopular choices.

            Absent that protection, the President will not be fully informed of his options.

            Like attorney client privilege, it belongs as much to the advisor as the President, forever. We have strayed from that principle to our detriment.


          24. “Like attorney client privilege, it belongs as much to the advisor as the President, forever. We have strayed from that principle to our detriment.”

            As usual you are bloviating about something you do not understand. Without going into the many ways you are full of shit, it does not exempt anyone from responding to subpoena.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. I can’t find any instances where executive privilege could be invoked by ex-presidents. Rulings have been about sitting presidents.

            If there is evidence of criminal intent or actions, which there is here in corroborating testimonies concerning an illegal attempt at the nullification of an election, I think privilege is restricted to personal attorney client status. Bannon was not the attorney, personal or government.

            Also, executive privilege can be waived by the sitting president as it is a specific privilege for the officeholder, not the general public to which ex-presidents belong.

            Wikipedia has a good explanation in great detail about just this distinction.


            Liked by 1 person

          26. First, I agree that privilege does not extend to blatantly illegal advice.

            The idea that executive privilege belongs only to the sitting President is new. Bush, for example, protected Clinton’s communications with Janet Reno.

            Only recently has that principle been abandoned.

            Keep in mind the purpose, If the privacy of communications existed in the moment, no government official or political advisor would offer advice that would affect their later careers once the President they worked for left office.

            Like the Electoral College, the Filibuster and the nomination process, the current crop of Democrat Congressmen seem willing to destroy the things that make our government work over the long term for momentary advantage.

            Remember. if you wreck these principles for temporary purposes now, they are gone, and your party may wish they were not when the GOP has the majority.

            I, for one, would be delighted to see the records on Waco and Fast and Furious come to light if we throw executive privilege away. In that case, the careers of a lot of former Obama allies will be over.


          27. Bush protected Clinton’s communication with Reno. Bush was the sitting president.

            Clinton could not have invoked that.

            The questions for Bannon would be around the election of 2020 and his criminal involvement culination in his exhortation and podcast that “all hell will break loose tomorrow” on the night before 1/6.

            Executive privilege would be a huge stretch.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. That’s why it was being negotiated.

            I don’t doubt that some of Bannon’s communications would not be covered but some were.

            Per your Wiki cite, it is the normal practice for such claims to be negotiated and confrontation avoided.

            Until TDS overcame good practice.


          29. Bannons case was simple. He ignored the subpoena and didn’t even contact the committee until after the date he was due to appear.

            None of the case was about anything else other than he ignored a lawful subpoena. He was protected by the 5th.

            Liked by 2 people

          30. “Until TDS overcame good practice.”

            You spelled it wrong: It is TBS. Trump Blindness Syndrome. A syndrome proven by one’s blind faith in a man over the laws and rules of a Constitutional Republic. All in the name of “owning the Libs”.


          31. “Executive privilege would be a huge stretch.”

            Executive privilege is far more limited than some people want to believe. It applies ONLY to advice concerning official actions that ONLY the President has the power to perform.

            “The communication(s) in question must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power” that requires direct presidential decision-making. The privilege is limited to the core constitutional powers of the president, such as the power to appoint and remove executive officials, the commander-in-chief power, the sole authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and the pardon power. The privilege does not cover matters handled within the broader executive branch beyond the Executive Office of the President. Thus, it does not cover decision-making regarding the implementation of laws that delegate policymaking authority to the heads of departments and agencies, or which allow presidential delegations of authority.”


            With this understanding of the state of the law, it is clear that discussions of a political or criminal nature would NEVER be covered by Executive Privilege.

            Liked by 2 people

          32. “DO you want President’s making decisions on partial information?”

            hHe yes-men in the administration did that daily with him. The uncrazed realists were drowned out.


          33. By the way. I thought it was an illegitimate subpoena. What difference does it make how the judge ran his courtroom?

            The legitimacy of the subpoena was your first attack.

            Your goal posts keep moving and moving deeper into fertilizer territory.


          34. Two separate issues

            Nothing the Committee does is legitimate, legal maybe, but legitimate, no.

            The procedures of the court, in particular not allowing the defense to present a case, is whole different line of corrupuption.


          35. “ Nothing the Committee does is legitimate, legal maybe, but legitimate, no.”

            Your opinion is noted.

            Should we just have patted Trump on the head a said “nice try”, and left it at that? I think a thorough investigation of what happened, why it happened and who may have precipitated the attack was absolutely necessary. I would say that regardless of who was president.

            We had that, and the Republicans totally rejected a commission after agreeing to the terms they demanded.

            So, yes, not just legal and legitimate, but critical and necessary.

            If it had been Obama, you would agree wholeheartedly.

            Liked by 2 people

          36. Regardless of Trump’s actions, when Pelosi rejected the GOP appointees and replaced them with choices of her own, nothing the committee did could be legitimate.

            That is a fundamental element of fairness that the voters will see as this unfolds.

            Legal is determined by the courts, legitimate is in the eyes of the people. and the Democrats have made themselves no better in their eyes than Trump.

            Any moral high ground Democrats might have claimed was thrown away when Pelosi made it a kangaroo court where only one side is heard.


          37. So the total rejection of a commission with all of McCarty’s demands was “legitimate”.

            So I completely disagree.

            Don’t worry, if these people come to trial, all the legal protections will be there. For now, this is laying out what happened as told by Trump’s own handpicked loyalists and the rest real Republicans.

            Did you complain about Benghazi when Republican said several times this was specifically and unequivocally to hurt Clinton’s chances? No, of course not.

            This committee is bipartisan with two very right wing Republicans who actually are loyal to the US and the Constitution. Fancy that.

            Liked by 2 people

          38. You don’t get to link two separate things. Even if McCarthy was unwise to reject the commission, Pelosi responding with a one sided “committee” remains totally illegitimate and an affront to the American tradition of fairness. Trust lost will not be regained. Even honest Democrats secretly feel like they’re getting away with something wrong.

            BTW, I criticized the Benghazi investigations at the time. You might remember that I suggested that the Clintons wanted those investigations to distract from the real scandal, the arming of ISIS with Libya’s conventional arms by way of Hillary’s crime partner Sydney Bluementhal.


          39. Sorry, but we needed an investigation. Jordan, et. al, were probably going to be called to testify since they talked to Trump during his 187 minutes of inaction. Having them on the panel would be ludicrous. McCarthy knew that so he could snag devotees like you to cry about partisanship and gave the Democrats no choice. Look at it from another view other than red lenses and you would see that very clearly.

            Fairness requires Americans to know what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. If the extreme wing of the GOP did not want to have an investigation, which they said no to, let them complain. Notice the Republicans are not talking much about the hearings because the information and sworn testimonies from mostly stalwart Republicans and Trump picked staffers is so damning. Even Trump said McCarthy was stupid not to ensure some more Republicans were on the committee, though there are two solid, conservative patriots on there now.

            You thought Clinton wanted Gowdy to hold hearings…what are you smoking nowadays?

            Liked by 1 person

          40. The Clintons give you the lesser scandal to distract from the one that could do them harm. A stained blue dress to distract from sexual harassment and obstruction of justice, for example.

            Or being too slow to send help to distract you from arming with they thought were reformers and turned out to be terrorists.

            What Americans know is that the process is not a search for the truth but a snow job with a predetermined outcome. Absent some disagreement in the committee, people know they are seeing a show, not an inquiry. No cross examination of carefully coached witneses. They aren’t that stupid.


          41. I don’t know your cites for purposely exposing the blue dress to help Clinton or that help was available for Benghazi despite multiple hearings saying it really wasn’t. Or that both were grand schemes to distract the public. Clinton conspiracies are the fodder for the vulnerable, IMO.

            Not watching any of the 1/6 hearings, you are in a curious position to criticize them.

            Related to this, but distressingly descriptive, is the recent sanctioning of Rusty Bowers, the AZ Speaker, by the AZ Republican Party. He testified under oath about Trump calling him about overturning the election. Then Trump said Bowers told him there was fraud in AZ, which he never did. Bowers is under death threats. The right will attack the truth period. Loyalty to one man instead of the Constitution is exactly what you are arming yourself for, isn’t it.

            My suggestion is to wake up and smell the coffee. The truth is out, painful as it may be.

            Liked by 2 people

          42. Have you been in a coma the last 6 years?

            I have never liked Trump. I am not loyal to Trump. He was and is a lesser evil.

            The Clintons remain a far greater evil, along with Biden and the Obamas, If you Democrats don’t want me to vote for Trump, stop nominating greater evils.

            But regardless of anything Trump does or did, the Jan 6 Committee is a greater evil as well.

            Trump has not even come close in terms of harming the country.


          43. “ Trump has not even come close in terms of harming the country.”

            We differ greatly. Trump and his movement have solidified the split engineered by Gingrich and expanded by anti-Obama movements based on racism and pseudo-patriotism originating in grievance politics.

            The Big Lie cuts at the heart of our country since it eviscerates the democratic processes and our enviable history of peaceful transfer of power. All else is secondary.

            You want the trains to run on time at the sacrifice of freedom to choose our governments?

            Liked by 2 people

          44. Trump’s behavior after the election was shameful, but his policies were sound and the racism you claim was there was an illusion created by a hostile press.

            Being anti Clinton/Obama/Biden is to be pro capitalism and freedom. The left is rabidly authoritarian and must be defeated. If Trump was the guy we needed to do it, so be it.


          45. “ If Trump was the guy we needed to do it, so be it.”

            Exactly what I said…trains running on time more important than freedom.

            “… racism you claim was there was an illusion created by a hostile press.”

            Uh, no. Trump played the race card with his birtherism, no question. Support of White nationalists, Evangelicals included, “Mexican rapists” attacks, attacking Hispanic judges…the list goes on. Trump is at best an amoral opportunist who will say and do whatever gets cheers at a rally.

            He was booed in AZ when he supported Eli Crane and his answer was “but you still like me, right?”

            A telling tidbit of his shaky puppet status as a useful idiot in my opinion.

            Liked by 2 people

          46. Exactly the opposite.

            Obama set us on a path toward a totalitarian government run by the unaccountable Deep State.

            We needed a disruptor to turn us away from that path. Trump did not diminish anyone’s freedom, he restored it.


          47. Yes. But deep state in places like Egypt is essentially a government within a government. Here we have some excesses and bad judgement by law enforcement or bureaucracy on occasion.

            Here is the thing. Bureaucracy is like a flywheel. It keeps government functioning more or less predictably so policies and actions don’t vary wildly every time a new administration takes over. Planes keep flying with air controllers, mail continues, taxes are collected, inspections proceed, courts continue… you get the picture.

            I certainly think we have gotten too big and unwieldy. That is a job for Congress to resolve and an administration to execute.

            We had a spoils system in the early days. A total mess of revolving door cronyism. So the bureaucracy was developed to address that.

            Trump’s plan “F” was a disguised way of packing the bureaucracy with loyalists to him and him alone. And way down the line from the directors and secretaries currently appointed by each president. About 4000 nowadays.

            Loyalty should always be first to the Constitution. Not to say a president can’t appoint policy wonks that favor his agenda. That’s a given. But turning around the ship of state needs to be carefully done while citizens can still get predictable services and regulatory enforcement.

            Deep state is a conspiracy theorists favorite whipping boy. Bureaucracy reform is needed, but out of efficiency not paranoia.


            Liked by 2 people

          48. …”the racism you claim was there was an illusion created by a hostile press.”

            Seriously? The same guy who said he wanted little men with yarmulkes managing his finances isn’t racist? And the idiots in Charlottesville weren’t really chanting anti-Semitic tropes the night before the rally. Right?

            You dismal attempts at painting Trump as a “lesser evil” are so rooted in your loathing of any and all Democrats are therefore are not worth anything.


          49. So, praise for the education and skill of Jewish accounts is racist? Who knew.

            Was Trump among the neo-Nazis who appropriated the Charlottesville protest?

            It seems you are looking awfully hard for racism, perhaps you are seeing a reflection?


          50. …”praise for the education and skill of Jewish accounts is racist?”

            You not being Jewish just don’t get it. On either point. It is an anti-Semitic trope that has been around for centuries.

            When Trump said good people on both sides, he refused to condemn those who marched through Charlottesville the night before. His lack of action, like that on Jan 6th, emboldened and empowered those who believe that his country should be a White Christian nation with no place for anyone except those who are in that tribe. The Black, the Jew, the Muslim, the Native American, the Yellow, the Brown and all of the others, including members of the LGBTQ+ community, women who have had or are contemplating abortions be DAMNED!

            Unlike pornography, I know what racism is whether YOU see it or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          51. The Jewish community has a cultural tradition of respect for education and business integrity that is pretty much unmatched in any other.

            Admiration for that tradition and those cultural values is not in my view racist.


          52. “ If you Democrats don’t want me to vote for Trump, stop nominating greater evils.”

            Empty talk, really. You despise Democrats, as you have actually said. Policy at the behest of an autocrat is more important to conservatives and apparently Libertarians than the messiness of democratic principles and practices.

            Trump is on a revenge path, period. But he is a useful idiot to the monied conservatives who will use his MAGA cult to destroy elections in favor of an autocratic blend of theocracy and plutocracy. Note how some GOP candidates are daring to split from the Big Lie, cautiously of course, since that is now shown to be a transparent grasp for power that may not last. But with all the election laws revised, the Court packed with ideologues, lower courts included, abortion politics rampant, tacit acceptance of right wing gangs and “European chauvinism”, Trump has fulfilled his duties.

            Liked by 2 people

          53. “He was and is a lesser evil.”

            Yet EVERY SINGLE DAY you say sosmething in defense of him.

            And your claims of him NOT harming the country are put to rest by the continued attacks on those who are “others” by those who have been emboldened by his rhetoric.

            And calling into question the integrity of our electoral processes has done more damage to the idea of a Democratic Republic than any little “secrets” Hillary has. But then again, you hate democracy, so I guess you don’t have an issue with that.


          54. 1.EVERY SINGLE DAY the left promotes lies about Trump, as though what is true is not bad enough.

            Prior to the unpredictable COVID pandemic, the country, especially the working class, was having its best times in our lifetimes.
            Confidence in our electoral process has been lost because of the pervasive abuse of the process and fraud by Democrats, not by the GOP exposing it.

            People understand there is no reason to oppose ID or enable ballot harvesting unless you intend to cheat.


          55. Questionable lies, at best. Did his campaign interact with Russians? Ask Mr. Manafort about that.

            How much money did the US government pay to HIS properties, that he did not divest himself from or place in a TRUE blind trust, with trustees NOT named Trump? Not to mention the foreign money spent so freely at his DC hotel. There may have been a loss of revenue at his properties, but it wasn’t because they weren’t getting funds from foreign governments or that of our own. One word reminder of his “business acumne”: CASINOS


          56. That’s not what ’emoluments’ means.

            Doing business with foreign governments at market rates is not improper.

            Now, if a foreign government paid more for something than it was worth, say paid a government official’s family member an exorbitant salary for a job for which he was unqualified, then you would have an emoluments issue.


          57. Honestly, emoluments is tricky to pin down. It can be skirted so easily.

            But if that were the ex-president’s biggest worry, he’d have no problems. Planning, aiding and abetting a terrorist attack to force his own VP to illegally overturn a lawful election…priceless.

            Liked by 1 person

          58. “Russia Collusion

            Is that all you got? Neither of those is a lie.

            They are the cold hard truth. Why do you think Manafort, Flynn, and Stone got Presidential pardons after they stonewalled investigations of Russian collusion? Go ahead, put your giant genius to work on that one.

            As for emoluments, you can split hairs all you want about market rates and pretend that the Trump family dealings in China, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia were all just normal transactions. But you are fooling only yourself.


          59. Your “one-sided argument” concerning the committee is lacking in reality. There are two members for the Republican Party on the committee, regardless of who appointed them. Not to mention that the MAJORITY of the witnesses are also members of that party, including Trump’s own appointees to his administration.

            Or are those facts inconvenient for you to agree to?

            Liked by 1 person

          60. Both of Pelosi’s hand picked Republicans were already committed never-Trumpers.

            They provided Pelosi with no more than a fig leaf for her Star Chamber trial.


          61. To quote one of our own, “So what?”

            They are still member s of the party. If it were a Manchin-Sinema situation, they would still be Democrats even though they have stood in the way of MANY Biden policies that didn’t further line his/her pockets.


          62. Well, then, when we investigate the Biden family’s business dealings, we’ll put Manchin and Sinema on the committee and that’ll make it fair.


          63. “Well, then, when we investigate the Biden family’s business dealings”

            I guess you have forgotten, but the Republicans already had an investigation of the Biden family’s business dealings. Just in time for the 2020 election. It found nothing of any significance.

            Click to access full.pdf


          64. “I agree that privilege does not extend to blatantly illegal adv”

            Then anything else you have to say concerning this means nothing. The attempted fraud recommended by advisors, the “call to arms” of supporters, and thee rest of the BS that was passed to Trump all falls under the “blatantly illegal advice” umbrella.

            Liked by 1 person

          65. “Then why no charges?”

            Be patient.

            Bannon foolishly spoke on his podcast of the violence that was to happen the next day. The next day. It will just take one of those Proud Boys or Oath Keepers he was in touch with to crack and he will be in very deep trouble.


          66. The defense was allowed to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness and then chose not to present ANY witnesses or testimony. TO claim the court did not “allow” it is in a phrase “HORSE HOCKEY!”


          67. Read the article.

            The key arguments the defense wanted to make were barred, those which had no chance of making a difference would have been allowed.


          68. The key arguments the defense wanted to make were a bogus waste of time, in the mind of the court. Bannon wanted a circus and the judge wasn’t going to play his game.

            Liked by 1 person

          69. “Within the limits of the law”

            Is there any reason to believe that this Trump-appointed judge violated the law in managing the trial?

            There is a legal requirement to comply with a lawful subpoena. Bannon chose not to comply. What is the side of this story that did not get told? By a six-decade old precedent blaming your lawyers is not a defense. So, it was not allowed.

            Others got the same subpoenas. They complied. They are not going to jail. When they were asked questions where they thought either Executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment applied, they invoked them. That is all the arrogant SOB Bannon had to do. He didn’t. LOCK HIM UP! Karma is a bitch.


          70. The precedent for weaponizing the DOJ occurred during the last administration. Barr conducted an investigation into election results without any requests by the states to do so. Highly irregular.

            Then Trump wanted DOJ to appoint Jeff Clark so he could send a bogus letter to the battleground states, starting with GA, saying they found irregularities, which it they hadn’t.

            Trump also threatened election officials in GA with prosecution.

            But it makes no difference. Those who want to supplant democratic elections to form our representative republic could not care less about anything except making sure they stay in power, legally or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          71. “1. Liz Cheney was not appointed by the minority”

            Uh, so what?
            She is a member of the minority party. So is Kinzinger. The Speaker is empowered by the Rules of the House adopted by the House to appoint whomever she chooses to a Select Committee. The minority leader is the one who tried to make the Committee a partisan effort. He failed.

            1. Tell that to Steve Bannon
              Bannon was prosecuted by the DOJ. He was tried in court. He was convicted by twelve jurors.

            Liked by 1 person

          72. “The dates on the subpoenas issued were unrealistic, and knowingly so.”

            Total nonsense. Where do you even get this stuff? Many others got similar subpoenas with similar requirements and managed to comply.

            Liked by 1 person

          73. “BTW, there has been another suicide by a J6 defendant who has been held without bail for 18 months without trial on a charge that at most would support a 6 month sentence.”

            You are a COMPLETE FOOL. You read somewhere in the shithead media that you gobble down that Mr. Aungst was a “political prisoner,” and you fill in the dots with this elaborate LIE you pulled out of your ass.

            In fact, Mr. Aungst who committed suicide yesterday was NEVER held in prison. Repeat NEVER. A fact I had no trouble finding out.

            He was arrested on January 27th and taken before a magistrate who freed him on personal recognizance pending arraignment. He was arraigned on March 22, 2021. He waived his right to a speedy trial and remained free on personal recognizance. His trial was on June 27th. He plead guilty to a minor charge and was still free while awaiting sentencing on September 27th. He might have been sentenced to at most 6 months, but it could have been less or suspended. We will never know. His suicide may have been induced by anxiety over the prospect of some prison time or it may have been other reasons.

            Your vile loose talk about weaponizing the DOJ and threats of retribution to those doing their jobs ALL based on a pack of lies marks you as a COMPLETE FOOL. That is the most kind and gentle way of saying it. It assumes you were duped and not just another pathological liar.



            Liked by 1 person

          74. “The Committee was still negotiating with his lawyers when the indictments were handed down.”

            No, they were not. This issue was raised in the trial and there was sworn testimony that no such negotiations were going on.

            Liked by 1 person

          75. “Nonetheless, it is not normal to indict someone while a contested subpoena …”

            More bullshit. The subpoena was not contested in court. If you have a cite, please share.

            Trump wrote a letter saying that he would waive Executive Privilege in an obvious last-ditch effort to give Bannon an out. The DOJ stated in court that no claim of Executive Privilege had ever been advanced and that therefore Trump’s letter was irrelevant. The defense wanted to allow testimony that Bannon was NOW willing to testify. It was not allowed because it too is irrelevant. For obvious reasons.

            Liked by 1 person

          76. “The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to confront the witnesses against you.”

            You are getting sillier and sillier.

            The prosecution only needed ONE witness against Bannon. That witness appeared, testified, and was available for cross-examination. That witness was the lawyer for the Committee. He testified to the ONLY facts that mattered. Was a lawful subpoena issued. Did Mr. Bannon comply?

            The Sixth amendment does not guarantee the right to waste the court’s time with spurious matters which are NOT a defense against this very narrow and very specific crime. The judge is very aware that his decisions will be appealed, and he certainly would not make them lightly. It should not matter, but the judge is a Trump appointee.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Godwin’s law is not invoked when Nazis are called Nazis.

          It is when the charge of Nazism is used in desperation by those with otherwise weak arguments that is applies.

          Bannon is lots of things, but not a Nazi.


          1. Far right nationalists in Europe love the guy. And those folks do embrace neo-Nazis in some pretty ugly ways.

            Maybe he needs better friends.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. It is worth noting that the cartoon says nothing about Nazis. It merely summarizes the White Supremacists’ core belief about the superiority of white people. You are the one to first bring up Nazis by invoking Godwin’s Law.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. We have family from Louisiana staying at the compound this week, so it took a while to get back to this.

            My source on Mr. Aungst said differently, but I accept your cites as accurate.


          4. “My source on Mr. Aungst said differently, but I accept your cites as accurate.”

            Well, that is big of you.

            But now I think you are lying. Again. Your “source” might have referred to him as a “political prisoner,” but I really doubt that your “source” – no matter how scurrilous – would make up the fact that he had been in jail for eighteen months when he had NEVER been incarcerated. But prove me wrong. Share your “source.”

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “Master Race” is trademarked by the Nazis.

            Who knew?

            But I give in. It appears to be an example of Godwin’s Law to use a “trademarked” Nazi phrase on the picture of a white Christian Nationalist / Fascist. However, I did not lose as a result. The creator of Godwin’s Law, Mike Godwin, has carved out an exception which applies in this case. After the Nazi riots in Charlottesville, he tweeted it out…

            “By all means, compare these shitheads to the Nazis. Again and again. I’m with you.”

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s