DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Steve Bannon, three others charged with fraud in border wall fundraising campaign

So you’re okay with trump’s name calling from the Oval Office. Got it.

Oh your not part of our group, believe me.

Facts don't care about Vers feelings, so Vers doesn't care for facts.

So you're with the other group that does it. Bravo! You support a president who does it. You support their side of the media who does it. Fox News, OAN, Newsmax.

At least you're willing to admit that you're not voting your actual principals and for a decent candidate and human being which you do have an opportunity to do. Instead you have chosen to vote for a hate monger because you hate to see people spreading hate.

j/c:

There was a time when the left was open-minded and willing to listen to all points of view. Look at the number of insults by the left now. Post after post after post designed to belittle anyone who doesn't follow in their narrow-minded politics.

Wah.

The truth sucks for you. You have avoided it like the plague and now cry foul. People are on to your BS.

So you've decided to support this...



Mr. Grab Them By The Pu...

You've become a joke.

Makes you wonder if these guys supporting Trump would let him talk about their wives and daughters like that... Would they be like Cruz or would they stand up to him... my vote is cruz or worse. The hardcore supporter might even jump in with him in belittling women, I know we've seen it on here numerous times.

Hmm, what’s more damaging to Americans?

A party that endorses slightly higher taxes to provide services such as education, healthcare, and fixes on the social safety net.

Or...

A party that endorses a man who proclaims his love of grabbing women by their vaginas, bragging about looking at underage beauty contest modes, and supporting white nationalists.

Tough choice, right?

j/c:

I won't make fun of or insult anyone over their vote because I think voting is an individual choice and right. I don't believe in trying to shame people into voting a certain way. I think the right to choose how you vote is an American right and it separates us from nations who are less free than we are.

I will say that I am not so much voting for the Republican party as I am against the Democrats in this election. Not trying to get anyone to agree, but it my right as an American to vote how I choose.

I am actually hoping a 3rd party springs to life in the very near future. A party that is geared more towards the working man [backbone of this country] and less to the exploiters who are on opposite ends of the economic scale.

Until then, I am voting against the Dems for several reasons. I won't list them all, but here are a few.

--I support the flag and nationalism over those who loot, burn, and destroy public property.

--I support the police over criminals.

--I support the working class over those who constantly have their hand out and always want more for doing nothing.

--I support a strong family life over those who have babies w/multiple women and don't support them and leave it to the taxpayers to pay for their shallow and self-pleasing encounters.

--I support a strong work ethic over shiftlessness.

--I support those who don't want to take my hard-earned money and give it to the entitled who believes the world owes them something.

--I do not believe in wealth distribution, free housing, reparations, defunding the police, excusing criminal behavior, etc.

--I prefer church-going folks who try and help their community over gang-bangers, although I'll never run w/either group.

--I support open-minded people who are moderate in their thinking over closed-minded folks who rely on insulting labels for all those who don't agree exactly the way they do.

You’re voting for a guy who advocates grabbing women by their vaginas.

Let that sink in.

You support a demagogue who if he talked about your wife or daughter the way he talks about many other women you'd punch him on the throat. Be proud.

If you actually supported an open minded person who are moderate in their thinking you would be voting for Biden.

You are a mockery of what you have claimed you have stood for.

I think there are a majority of Democrats that believe in every bullet point I have highlighted here - I removed anything that was remotely questionable... there are Democrats that believe the ultra wealthy should carry a higher tax burden and some might want to call that wealth redistribution and that's a rabbit hole which can be taken in many directions if one wants to, so I set those items aside.

I'm not sure where you get your information that insinuates that the Democrats are "FOR" all these things highlighted above, which is clearly the only way to read your post, but I suggest you try some different sources of information and news. Personally I think the things that you vote "FOR" by voting for Trump is long and wouldn't make good reading and certainly does nothing to elevate the country or heal the divides. But that's just my opinion.

And Biden is the only moderate candidate running for president.

You mean he's the guy that is so Center that the Bernie Boys and the AOC fans hated on him?

I don't know that I would use the term "hated on him". But they certainly stood in strong opposition to him.

But as per usual, even though he's as far away from a progressive candidate as could have been placed on the ticket, Trump supporters try to make him sound like he's AOC. I expect no less from the deplorable ones.

In 2016 I didn't call them deplorable. Some thought he was in campaign mode and would be "different" as a president. Some didn't really study his background and know what kind of person he really was. I don't equate being naive as being deplorable.

But if four years of name calling, attacking anyone who opposes him and general chaos he creates is ignored by those who support him, that's a different situation all together.

I keep my actual circle of friends small because I'm smart enough to realize the difference between drinking buddies, your church buddies and your actual friends. There's a big difference. I keep political talk confined to places pretty much designated places to do that, like here.

But I have friends and family from differing political backgrounds and beliefs. While we all know the leanings of each others politics, it's not something we really discuss a lot. I have one friend and two relatives that have openly told me they are changing their votes this year.

My mom's cousin who were both raised more like brother and sister by their grandparents, who I have been very close to my entire life, has always been a Republican. He is 82. My son in law who I'm very fond of has always been and voted Republican and one friend of mine who I grew up with, a Republican.

All of them have felt some need to tell me that they simply can't support Trump. All I can say to that is this, if there are three people in my circle of friends and family that felt the need to tell me they can't support and vote for Trump. Who actually told me they WILL vote For Biden because as they say, "at least he's a moderate", I can't imagine how much of that is going on across this country.

I am guessing Vers is doing his usual thing and ducking civil discussions that are challenging ...

Anyone else want to try and suggest that the Democratic Party is "for" any of these things?

Shhh, don't tell him. He still thinks they nominated AOC.

August 25, 2020


The Story Behind Bannon's Arrest


By Grant Baker

On August 20th, President Trump’s former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was arrested on fraud charges relating to the “We Build the Wall” construction project on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The news made for splashy headlines, but the story behind the charges was more mundane. Brian Kolfage, a triple amputee veteran and Purple Heart recipient, used a crowdfunding website as part of a political gag aimed at raising $1 billion dollars to construct a U.S.-Mexico border wall. After unexpectedly raising $17 million dollars within the first week, Kolfage decided to hand off the suddenly real and ambitious initiative to someone with more experience, connections, and resources. Steve Bannon stepped up to help the fledgling project navigate the labyrinth of red tape and regulations designed to stop the project.

The crowdfunding website relinquished the funds to a nonprofit set up by Bannon as Kolfage continued to promote the project, raising additional funds while promising to spend 100% of funds on the wall’s construction and not to pay a salary to the organizers. Indeed, the bylaws of the new 501(c)(4) “We Build the Wall” nonprofit reflect these statements. Under Bannon, “We Build the Wall” began paying various construction, marketing, and legal vendors for work relating to the project. One of these vendors owned by Bannon associate Timothy Shea began paying Kolfage for marketing work on the project. Kolfage could not get paid as an organizer but could as an employee of a vendor, receiving a total of $350,000 since 2018 for his work on the project.

Prosecutors from the Southern District of New York disagreed, conducting a pre-dawn raid to arrest yet another Trump ally (though this time, without the CNN camera crew). Bannon was yanked off a yacht belonging to a wealthy Chinese dissident and charged along with Kolfage, Shea, and another associate.

The sealed indictment against Brian Kolfage, Stephen Bannon, et al. centers around the various attempts to keep the payments to Kolfage a secret for public relations reasons, listing the various pathways and obfuscation maneuvers allegedly used by Bannon and associates to hide the fact that Kolfage was paid by affiliate organizations. Although the maneuvers themselves were legal, two fraud charges were filed on the premise that the payments made to Kolfage by various legal, construction, and marketing vendors broke the promise that organizers would be unpaid. The indictment also mentions the reimbursements that Bannon and codefendants received for travel and miscellaneous expenses, though does not mention their amount.

Whether or not nonprofits can use vendors which employ the nonprofit’s organizers is a contextual question, likely answered in the bylaws of each 501(c)(4) nonprofit. Bannon and his associates are not charged with violating the bylaws of their nonprofit, any laws governing 501(c)(4) organizations, or with making false statements on tax forms or other financial paperwork. If the nonprofit’s bylaws were never violated, the basis of the charges become unclear. Charities almost always take a haircut for operating expenditures, the haircut in this case amounting to less than 2%, far less than the typical 40% incurred by American charities.

Fraud charges require the existence of at least one donor who contributed on the basis that there would be no administrative haircut and would not have contributed otherwise, but the indictment issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) fails to mention such a victim. In fact, no specific victims in the case are listed in the indictment, a mainstay of conventional fraud charges, raising questions of jurisdictional venue regarding the SDNY’s right to bring charges in the first place. There have been no allegations of donors complaining that Kolfage received pay, a fact publicly disclosed since January 2020 (even the indictment mentions this), and various offers to refund unhappy donors have been made since the project’s conception.

The issue of Kolfage’s salary aside, why the SDNY would allege that Bannon and his two wealthy associates ran a two-year scam to expense some hotel bills makes more sense than you think. The charges were filed by acting United States Attorney Audrey Strauss, a registered Democrat filling the shoes of her former boss Geoffrey Berman after he was fired from the position by President Trump. Berman was terminated after it came out that he had been using his position as a federal prosecutor to wage war against Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani in retaliation for Giuliani’s investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s Burisma scandal. Under the pretext of investigating a foreign lobbying disclosure violation, Berman had attempted to pressure Giuliani out of investigating how Joe Biden forced the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son. After initially refusing to vacate his post, Berman left the SDNY to his deputy Audrey Strauss.

Audrey Strauss‘s case history reads like a partisan hitman. Under Berman, Strauss worked on cases against Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, and Republican House Representative Chris Collins. Not long after her boss was pushed out, she rolled out the charges against Steve Bannon, making any future firing look like obstruction of justice. Strauss’s maneuver should sound familiar to anyone who remembers former FBI Director James Comey’s termination. Immediately after Comey was fired, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe became acting FBI Director and immediately launched a retaliatory investigation into Trump to protect his position.

Using the McCabe maneuver, Strauss has caught President Trump in a double bind. If the Department of Justice is contemplating firing Audrey Strauss for conducting deeply political investigations under Geoffrey Berman, they’d better think twice. Although the charges against Bannon affirm her politicization of prosecutorial power, firing her now would look like obstruction of justice. If they leave her alone, she will likely find excuses to charge additional Trump associates, throwing red meat to her party in the final months of an important election year and distracting the public from important indictments relating to the illegally conceived anti-Trump FISA spy warrants.

In pursuing this case, Strauss will gain access to the list of donors who contributed to “We Build the Wall”, opening the door to political persecution of noteworthy individuals on the list and causing a chilling effect on grassroots political activism. Strauss’s indictment also includes a forfeiture request regarding the remaining “We Build the Wall” funds, which the court will claim an estimated 10% administrative handling fee even if an acquittal occurs later down the road and ending the project in the meantime.

It may be a while before the political headwinds shaping the charges against Steve Bannon are recognized by the media, but if the unraveling of the Russian investigation serves as any indicator, the answer is most likely never. Even General Flynn, despite the uncovering of exonerating evidence, material misstatements by prosecutors, and an illegal frame-up plot originating in Obama’s Oval Office, has yet to get a fair shake in the media or the courts. Unlike Flynn, “Sloppy Steve” is not widely loved by the Trump fans he is charged with defrauding, and the prosecutors are taking advantage.


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/the_story_behind_bannons_arrest.html

the story behind Bannon’s arrest.. dude broke the law and used your contribution for his personal use. And y’all will still support him ripping you off.

The whole article is a hatchet job with false references all through it. . . . but this is funny:

“Sloppy Steve” is not widely loved by the Trump fans he is charged with defrauding, and the prosecutors are taking advantage.


You know prosecutors can only "Take Advantage" if someone broke the law right? That's what happens under rule of law. LOL

When it involves the Trump crime family it's always the fault of someone else. That seems to be the new Republican mantra.

MAGA=My ass got arrested