DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus January 6th Insurrection Fallout pt5

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-2024-criminal-probes-jan6-1384379/

Trump Tells Team He Needs to Be President Again to Save Himself from Criminal Probes
The former president is planning on running for the White House — and away from the law

By ASAWIN SUEBSAENG & ADAM RAWNSLEY
\

Joe Maiorana/AP Images

When Donald Trump formally declares his 2024 candidacy, he won’t just be running for another term in the White House. He’ll be running away from legal troubles, possible criminal charges, and even the specter of prison time.

In recent months, Trump has made clear to associates that the legal protections of occupying the Oval Office are front-of-mind for him, four people with knowledge of the situation tell Rolling Stone.

Trump has “spoken about how when you are the president of the United States, it is tough for politically motivated prosecutors to ‘get to you,” says one of the sources, who has discussed the issue with Trump this summer. “He says when [not if] he is president again, a new Republican administration will put a stop to the [Justice Department] investigation that he views as the Biden administration working to hit him with criminal charges — or even put him and his people in prison.”


Presidential immunity and picking his own attorney general aren’t Trump’s only reasons for running again. And as he works on another run, Trump is in a tug-of-war with leaders and operatives of his own party about when to announce, according to multiple people with knowledge of the matter.


The former president is motivated to announce early — even before Election Day 2022 — in the hopes of clearing the field of primary rivals. But GOP leaders, including some of Trump’s closest advisors, don’t want him to declare his intentions until after the midterm elections. The GOP wants to keep voters focused on President Joe Biden, rather than transforming the contest into a referendum on Trump. In recent months, Trump has reluctantly agreed to hold off, only to return shortly thereafter with threats to make an early announcement, either out of self-interest, spite, or some combination of the two.

But as Trump talks about running, the four sources say, he’s leaving confidants with the impression that, as his criminal exposure has increased, so has his focus on the legal protections of the executive branch.

It’s not just liberal wish-casters or Trump critics who are acknowledging the former president’s legal jeopardy. Trump’s teams of lawyers and former senior administration officials speak about it commonly. “I do think criminal prosecutions are possible…for Trump and [former White House chief of staff Mark] Meadows certainly,” Ty Cobb, a former top lawyer in Trump’s White House, bluntly told Rolling Stone late last month.

Trump himself seems to acknowledge potential problems. He “said something like, ‘[prosecutors] couldn’t get away with this while I was president,’” another one of the four sources recalls. “It was during a larger discussion about the investigations, other possible 2024 [primary] candidates, and what people were saying about the Jan. 6 hearings … He went on for a couple minutes about how ‘some very corrupt’ people want to ‘put me in jail.’”

The powers of the presidency would offer a welcome pause to the various civil suits and criminal investigations now hanging over Trump. It’s unclear whether the Justice Department will charge Trump in connection with fomenting the January 6 insurrection, but winning the White House would be extremely helpful to him. Department policy forbids the prosecution of a sitting president, effectively insulating Trump from any federal charges for another four years.



The law is less clear on whether a president can face prosecution from states while in office, but any attempt to put Trump on trial in a state case would likely be litigated in the Supreme Court. Former New York City district attorney Cyrus Vance’s efforts to subpoena Trump’s tax returns landed before the high court in 2020.


At the state level, Trump faces two criminal investigations. In Manhattan, district attorney Alvin Bragg empaneled a grand jury to investigate whether the former president committed fraud by allegedly lying about the value of his assets in financial statements. The grand jury has since expired, however, and there are few indications that Bragg intends to bring charges. In Georgia, prosecutors in Fulton County are investigating whether Trump illegally interfered in the counting of votes by pressuring Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes for him after the election. Just this month, Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis has subpoenaed Trump allies Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsay Graham and sent letters to pro-Trump Georgia state senators warning they could be prosecuted as part of the case.

Trump faces a slew of lawsuits, both for his conduct while in office and before. In previous cases Trump’s attorneys have claimed that the office of the president makes him immune to civil suits while sitting. That was Trump’s defense in a since-dismissed lawsuit by former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos.

In the 1990s, Paula Jones’ suit against then-President Clinton established that presidents do not enjoy absolute immunity. But the Zervos suit against Trump dragged on for five years before she dropped it. The case demonstrated that the presidency can help delay civil suits, even if it’s not an insurmountable obstacle.

Trump’s most recent legal headaches stem from his role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection. Capitol and Washington, D.C. Metropolitan police officers have sued Trump over the physical and emotional damages they suffered during the rioting. The former president also faces two separate suits from Democratic members of Congress. The suits accuse the president of violating their civil rights by conspiring with extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to prevent the count of electoral votes.



E. Jean Carroll is still pursuing a case against Trump for defamation. She has accused Trump of raping her in a store in the mid 1990s and is suing over his 2019 claim that Carroll was “totally lying.” The Justice Department, under both Trump and Biden, has claimed that Trump is immune from the suit because he was “acting within the scope of his office” when he made the claims. A federal appeals court is currently weighing the department’s arguments.


And in New York, attorney general Letitia James is pursuing a civil investigation into whether the Trump Organization lied about the value of its assets.

The suits add to mounting pressure on Trumpworld as the Jan. 6 committee and Justice Department investigations have heated up. A number of Trump aides have been pulled into a federal grand jury investigation into the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory. The investigation has yielded search warrants served on Trump campaign attorney John Eastman and Justice Department and former acting assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark.

In the face of the investigations, many in Trumpworld have hoped that former aides could face prosecution for the efforts to overturn the election instead of the former president. In particular, Trump associates have tried to distance him from Eastman. And as Rolling Stone reported last week Trump’s legal advisors also view former chief of staff Mark Meadows as a potential fall guy for the former president’s post-election activities.

trump is the worst kind of criminal.

Like a crooked cop or a priest pedifile.

trump, bannon, eastman, giuliani, meadows, navarro, and powell blatant crimes of treason. In any other country at any time in history they would be hung.
When you attempt to overthrow a government that is the common punishment.

Exiled would work for me. Remove them permanently from the United States because they tried to take over the country.

Just a thought for Trump.. Try not to commit crimes.....

Steve Bannon's judge says he refuses to allow the trial to be a 'political circus'

The federal judge presiding over Steve Bannon's trial pledged Wednesday to prevent the high-profile proceeding from turning into a "political circus."

Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee confirmed in 2019, shut down questioning from defense lawyers about the motives of the House lawmakers who supported subpoenaing the longtime Trump ally as part of the congressional inquiry into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

"I do not intend for this to become a political case, a political circus, a forum for partisan politics," Nichols said.

Nichols' admonition came on the third day of Bannon's trial, which began with prosecutors objecting to the defense team's apparent effort to inject politics into the case. Bannon was indicted in November on a pair of contempt of Congress charges — each carrying a maximum sentence of a year in prison and $100,000 fine — stemming from his defiance of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack and former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In opening arguments on Tuesday, Bannon's defense lawyer Evan Corcoran urged the 14 jurors to ask themselves if evidence in the trial was "affected by politics,"

"Politics is the lifeblood of the US House of Representatives," Corcoran said. "Politics invades every decision that they make."

The opening arguments were followed by testimony from the Justice Department's first witness: Kristin Amerling, the deputy staff director and chief counsel of the House January 6 committee. Amerling returned to the witness stand Wednesday morning to continue her testimony.

Bannon's defense attorneys had hoped to summon lawmakers — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — to face questioning at the trial, but Nichols quashed a subpoena for their testimony. Arguing against the subpoena, House general counsel Doug Letter said, "It seems clear that Mr. Bannon's trying to turn this into some kind ofpolitical circus."

On Tuesday, Bannon emerged from the courthouse and sharply disparaged the House January 6 committee for sending a staff member rather than a lawmaker to testify at his trial. He described the House committee's chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, as a "disgrace" and said the panel's members lacked the "guts" to appear at the trial.

In Nichols' courtroom, prosecutors did not raise Bannon's commentary outside the courthouse.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ste...DjtW2Y2kNZzawTwrGfEqn8Wd0qQ5k2daCRmEZ3GQ

Sounds like an odd statement coming from someone who was willing to go so far as avoiding to testify when he was subpoenaed because he lacked the guts to do so.

Bipartisan group of senators cuts deal to change election laws in response to January 6 attack

A bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, marking the most significant response by Congress to former President Donald Trump’s relentless pressure campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The proposal still needs to be approved by both chambers and will need 60 votes in the Senate to break any filibuster attempt, meaning at least 10 Republicans would be needed to support any legislation. Announcement of the plan kicks off what is expected to be a challenging, months-long process to get the deal passed into law before the end of the year.

The deal is the culmination of months of negotiation led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with an additional six Democrats and eight Republicans. The proposal unveiled Wednesday is split up into two bills.

One of the bills is focused on modernizing and overhauling the Electoral Count Act, an 1887 law that Trump had sought to exploit and create confusion over how Congress counts Electoral College votes from each state. As part of that proposal, senators are attempting to clarify that the vice president only has a ceremonial role in overseeing the certification of the electoral results.

The proposal also includes key provisions intended to promote an orderly transition of presidential power by outlining guidelines for when eligible candidates can receive federal resources for a transition into office.

If neither candidate concedes within five days of Election Day, both candidates would be able to receive access to federal transition resources until “it is substantially certain who will win the majority of electoral votes,” according to a fact sheet. Ultimately, only one candidate will be eligible when there is “a clear winner of the election.”

Amid revelations of an effort by Trump allies to put forward illegitimate electors in key states, the bill tries to prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future.

It would also make it harder for members of Congress to attempt to overturn an election by increasing the number of House and Senate members required to raise an objection to election results when a joint session of Congress meets to certify them. Under current law, just one senator can join one House member in forcing each side to vote on whether to throw out results subject to an objection.

The bill is co-sponsored by the nine Republicans and seven Democrats who announced the deal.

According to the fact sheet, the proposal dealing with the vice president’s role would make clear that the responsibility is “solely ministerial and that he or she does not have any power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.”

The second bill is aimed at improving election security and would enhance federal penalties for anyone who threatens or intimidates election officials as well as increase penalties for the tampering with election records. The bill is co-sponsored by five Republicans and seven Democrats.

While constitutional experts say the vice president currently can’t disregard a state-certified electoral result, Trump pushed then-Vice President Mike Pence to obstruct the Electoral College certification in Congress as part of his pressure campaign. But Pence refused to do so and, as a result, became a target of the former President and his mob of supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said the bill would make it harder to overturn an election when a joint session of Congress convenes to certify a presidential election.

“Anything we can do and show to the American public that we realize how serious that day was, and that we’re going to do all we can to prevent a repeat of January 6th, is a step in the right direction,” he said.

“Any future vice president cannot, should not, will not be able to overturn legitimate votes of Americans and their electors that states vote,” Warner said.

Further details on what’s in the deal

The bill that seeks to overhaul the Electoral Count Act would include a number of changes aimed at making sure that Congress can clearly “identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each state,” a fact sheet states.

This comes as revelations surface about an effort by Trump allies to subvert the Electoral College process and install fake GOP electors in seven swing states.

The newly unveiled deal creates a set of stipulations designed to make it harder for there to be any confusion over the accurate electors. For example, it states that each state’s governor would be responsible for submission of a certificate that identifies electors. Congress would not be able to accept a slate of electors submitted by any other official. “This reform would address the potential for multiple state officials to send Congress competing slates,” the fact sheet states.

The bill would also set a higher bar for members of Congress to be able to raise objections to the certification of electoral votes.

The fact sheet says that the proposal “raises the threshold to lodge an objection to electors to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

The bill dealing with election security also includes a number of other key provisions.

One such proposal would reauthorize an independent agency known as the Election Assistance Commission for a period of five years and require the commission to implement cyber security testing for voting systems.

The bill also includes measures aimed at helping states improve procedures for handling mail-in ballots.
What’s next for the proposal

The Senate Rules Committee announced on Wednesday following the release of the deal that the panel plans to hold a hearing on the Electoral Count Act and efforts to overhaul electoral laws in response to the January 6 attack. The announcement is one sign that the newly released proposal is not on track to move immediately to the Senate floor for consideration and instead will take time to work its way through the legislative process as senators work to try to pass legislation before year’s end.

Some senators believe that the issue could slip into a lame-duck session of Congress between the November elections and January.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/poli...ZHAwvJ95ibcAE75nehNHzqMLzV-yRzhGSxjzaKUM

Open and shut case max penalty.

Want to see that anarchist behind bars.

I like the proposed changes to close the potential loopholes that did not exist.

You never think about laws that may be needed until someone tries the unthinkable.

Former Trump White House aide who met with January 6 panel attacks witnesses, lawmakers in profane and sexist rant

A former Trump White House aide who met with the January 6 committee earlier this week went on a profane and sexist rant on a livestream after his testimony, where he railed against the lawmakers and attacked other witnesses, according to audio posted to his Telegram.

The aide, Garrett Ziegler, met with the House panel on Tuesday. Lawmakers were likely interested in hearing from him because of his ties to one of the most shocking episodes of the 2020 election saga: A White House meeting where then-President Donald Trump’s outside allies tried to convince him to declare martial law and use the military to seize voting machines.

In the 27-minute livestream, Ziegler used vulgar and misogynistic language to attack Cassidy Hutchinson and Alyssa Farah Griffin, two women who worked for the Trump White House but have since publicly broken from the former President and cooperated with the January 6 panel.

He also accused the January 6 House select committee of being “anti-White,” without any evidence. (The nine-member panel is led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, who is Black.)

“They’re Bolsheviks,” Ziegler said in the stream, referring to the far-left communists who led the Soviet Union, “so, they probably do hate the American founders and most White people in general. This is a Bolshevistic anti-White campaign. If you can’t see that, your eyes are freaking closed. And so, they see me as a young Christian who they can try to basically scare, right?”

The livestream is audio-only, but the voice on the recording matches past videos of Ziegler. CNN has reached out to the January 6 committee and Ziegler’s attorney seeking comment.

At the White House, Ziegler was an aide to Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was charged with contempt of Congress for defying the panel’s subpoena. (He pleaded not guilty.)

The New York Times previously reported that Ziegler escorted some of Trump’s most controversial allies into the White House for the now-infamous December 2020 meeting where martial law was discussed. In Ziegler’s online postings, he disputed parts of the Times story.

On his Telegram channel, Ziegler continues to promote debunked conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. He falsely claimed in recent posts that “the election was stolen” and that the January 6 attack on the US Capitol “was one of the greatest orchestrated false flags in history.”

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/poli...SXNe7YVV6QVQT_aSJZDdDQau_Bwa_f0TpZK0KuCg

'Loudmouth' Capitol riot defendant had a rough day at his Jan. 6 jury trial

Matthew Bledsoe, who scaled a wall before entering the Capitol through a door with broken glass panels, tried to convince jurors that he thought he was allowed inside.

A Tennessee man and self-described "loudmouth," who filmed himself screaming "WE IN THIS B----" as he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, had a difficult time explaining his actions to a jury this week.

Matthew Bledsoe, of Memphis, is facing a felony count of obstruction of an official proceeding as well as multiple misdemeanors, including entering or remaining in a restricted building and disorderly and disruptive conduct. Bledsoe, the seventh Jan. 6 defendant to face a jury trial, took the stand as a witness on Wednesday.

In closing statements Thursday, his lawyer, Jerry Ray Smith, argued that jurors should find him guilty of one misdemeanor offense, parading or picketing inside the Capitol, but not guilty on the other counts. Jurors in Bledsoe’s case are expected to begin deliberations later Thursday.

The trial unfolded as media attention at the federal courthouse in D.C. zeroed in on the contempt of Congress trial of Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and former White House strategist who refused to comply with a subpoena for documents and testimony from the House select committee investigating Jan. 6.

Bledsoe argued that he was unaware that Congress was certifying Joe Biden's 2020 election win when he stormed the Capitol. Despite having received updates from his wife and brother about congressional proceedings inside the Capitol on the day of the riot, he told jurors that he had no idea what lawmakers were doing. Former President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, which preceded the riot, also mentioned the electoral college certification process.

As he entered the Capitol through a door with broken glass panels, Bledsoe filmed himself saying, "Where are those pieces of s--- at." Alarms were blaring in the background of the video.

"Who were the pieces of s---?" Assistant U.S. Attorney Jamie Carter asked Bledsoe Wednesday. Bledsoe said he was "being a loudmouth," insisting he was not referring to lawmakers but rather the people whom he believed at the time had stolen an election.

Carter then showed an image that Bledsoe had reposted on social media that depicted members of Congress hunkered down inside the House amid the riot, with a caption suggesting that politicians should be scared.

Bledsoe said that it was "just something I reposted," and that he didn't have all the information at the time.

When prosecutors confronted him with a text he sent to his wife, saying it was "good" that someone planted bombs near the Capitol, Bledsoe said he really didn't mean "good." He also claimed he didn't really mean it when he wrote that he "stormed the Capitol."

In an attempt to explain why he climbed a wall to get to the Capitol, Bledsoe said his home in Tennessee was "quite a bit different" than D.C., and that he climbed walls back home regularly.

Bledsoe also claimed he couldn't hear Capitol alarms blaring on Jan. 6, or in the video he had filmed, which was replayed for the jury.

Carter told the jury Thursday that Bledsoe seemed to have a selective memory about what happened on the day of the riot.

"Seems he didn't see the things that could hurt him in his case today," Carter said, encouraging jurors to take Bledsoe at his own words. "He meant what he said, he said what he meant."

"You do not 'storm' somewhere you have a right to be. I don't 'storm' my friend's house when I go over for dinner," Carter said. "He said he stormed the Capitol, and he meant it."

Bledsoe’s attorney, who had conceded that his client showed "extremely poor judgement" and was "not completely blameless" for his actions, argued the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bledsoe went in with the intent to obstruct an official proceeding.

When Bledsoe saw tear gas inside the rotunda, the “scales fell from his eyes” and he realized for the first time that he was not welcome at the Capitol, Smith said.

The FBI has arrested about 850 defendants in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. More than 300 defendants have pleaded guilty and over 200 have already been sentenced.

The first six insurrection defendants to face a jury trial — Guy Reffitt, Thomas Robertson, Dustin Thompson, Thomas Webster, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, and Anthony Robert Williams — were convicted on every count they faced. Other defendants have been convicted by judges during bench trials, and just one defendant has been fully acquitted.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...kNjhw6jfzUekwoB1NPIH9R6CD71BXtStmbkLyAK0

When you believe it can't keep getting crazier, it does.

Please enlighten us- what is your PROOF they are anti-white, and anti-Christian, and SPECIFICALLY- how are they bolsheviks?

It's in purple indicating sarcasm

That loud snap was Josh Hawley's sphincter clinching as he was just pointed out for his notorious fist pump on the 6th, which helped incite the mob. They followed with a clip of him literally running for his life as the mob stormed the Capitol.

Bro, I hope by now you wouldn’t believe I would say something like that seriously.

There's another episode of the Dumbest Trump Contest and Saga.

Then why post it?

It was sarcasm,,, Sarcasm can be fun... funny!

That Josh Hawley bit last night was funny.....

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"

Because it's funny and it's posted in purple. Care to contribute anything substantive to the conversation for once, or will you keep up with the trolling?

Somebody redid it with Yakety Sax.

It's called humor.

Ok ok. I get it. Haha. That kind of humor is what Fox News does. Like making fun of Biden who caught covid. But broke into prayer when trump caught it. Haha. Funny.

Wisconsin assembly speaker says Trump called him this month to decertify 2020 election

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said former President Donald Trump called him last week as part of a fresh effort to decertify the state’s 2020 presidential election results.

“He would like us to do something different in Wisconsin,” Vos, a Republican, explained to CNN affiliate WISN in relaying his phone conversation with Trump. “I explained it’s not allowed under the Constitution. He has a different opinion.”

Trump’s latest effort to overturn his election loss, according to Vos, rests on a recent state Supreme Court ruling that bars the use of most ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin, and states that no one can return a ballot in person on behalf of another voter.

Vos said he explained to Trump that the ruling does not mean the use of ballot drop boxes in the 2020 election were illegal, but that “going forward it can’t happen.”

“I think we all know Donald Trump is Donald Trump,” Vos told WISN. “There’s very little we can do to control or predict what he will do.”

On his social media platform Truth Social Tuesday evening, the former President hailed the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling as “Great” and “a time to act!” without specifying how.

“Robin, don’t let the voters of Wisconsin down!” Trump wrote.

Drop boxes have grown in popularity in recent elections in the Badger State: More than 520 ballot drop boxes were used in the 2020 general election, with that number increasing to 570 across 66 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties during spring elections in 2021, according to numbers cited in the state Supreme Court decision.

But the court’s majority ruled that the Wisconsin Election Commission – a six-member panel that helps oversee voting in the state – had overstepped its authority when it issued guidance to local election clerks to allow the use of drop boxes to return absentee ballots in the 2020 election, during the height of the pandemic.

Voting rights groups and Democrats have argued that restricting ballot drop boxes will make it harder for some residents to vote, especially those with disabilities. But conservative interests in Wisconsin have maintained that voting practices employed in the state during the 2020 election, such as the widespread use of ballot drop boxes, violated state law and opened the door to potential fraud.

Critics of the 2020 election have not offered evidence that widespread fraud altered the results of the presidential race, and the state Supreme Court ruling comes amid the backdrop of a competitive primary season in Wisconsin and beyond.

Wisconsin will be a key swing state in 2024. President Joe Biden won it by a little more than 20,600 votes in 2020 after Trump captured it four years earlier by fewer than 23,000 votes.

Trump has strongly hinted that he will again run for president in 2024 and that an announcement is imminent, though he continues to rail against the outcome of the 2020 election, often relying on debunked or unfounded claims.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/donald-trump-wisconsin-2020-presidential-election/index.html

And the trump farce continues.....

Except for the fact the two are nothing alike at all, I can see the comparison.

Good grief, man...

Steven Colbert makes fun of Biden too. I guess Colbert is like Fox News? Good Lord man. 05 didn't make fun of him having covid either. In fact using purple is an indication of sarcasm. This is why everyone who even shares some of your views gets labeled a snowflake.

Also, redid it with Curb...

This one seems quite appropriate.....

Kinzinger referred to him as Fistpump McRunpants on Twitter.

I'm dead.

Why don’t you learn what nazis are before doing something goofy like saying people who think Americans have a right to control our border are nazis. Why don’t you go down to your local Walgreen, drop 2 quarters into their time machine and put in 1939 Warsaw Poland. Or 1941 dachau. Learn something before you say something totally idiotic.

You may wish to try to review how it started rather than focusing on how it ended. Learning how it all started may help us prevent witnessing history repeating itself and us being forced to rewatch how it ended.

Ex-Trump DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark hit with legal ethics charges over post-election role

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...cO3G6SOBe-GdQFHDHWTtFvtXF1tMhwHImpLz-rRk

And the beat goes on.....

Well I have spent some time perusing these pages. Very quickly I felt like I had entered….The Twilght Zone. No question you looney lefties have lost your everlovin minds. Your focus on this tv miniseries is amazing!! I see people wanting to “hang him”….I’ll bring the rope or shoot him ….I’ll bring the gun. But wait whatabout these people who worked with the President, they are just as bad. And maybe his voters. Maybe reeducation camps for them.

Meanwhile , the vast, vast majority of Americans are occupied with more mundane matters. Like will I have the $80 I need to fill my gas tank. Or will I have enough $ to pay for my expensive groceries next week? Or will there be baby formula available next month?Or what are we doing with the 2 million + people illegally crossing our border the past year? Or who are those million illegals who crossed into our country without contact with our border patrol. Are they criminals or are they terrorists?? Nobody knows.

So you just keep obsessing while the rest of America tries to restore some sanity.

Trump ex-adviser Bannon convicted of contempt of U.S. Congress

Steve Bannon, a key associate of former President Donald Trump and an influential figure on the American right, was convicted on Friday of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee investigating last year's attack on the U.S. Capitol, a major victory for the Democratic-led panel.

A jury found Bannon, 68, guilty of two misdemeanor counts for refusing to provide testimony or documents to the House of Representatives select committee as it scrutinizes the Jan. 6, 2021, rampage by Trump supporters who tried to upend the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Each contempt of Congress count is punishable by 30 days to one year behind bars, as well as a fine of $100 to $100,000.

The verdict by the jury of eight men and four women, after less than three hours of deliberations, marked the first successful prosecution for contempt of Congress since 1974, when a judge found G. Gordon Liddy, a conspirator in the Watergate scandal that prompted President Richard Nixon's resignation, guilty.

Bannon was a key adviser to the Republican Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, then served as his chief White House strategist during 2017 before a falling out between the two that was later patched up. Bannon also has played an instrumental role in right-wing media.

His defense team in closing arguments on Friday suggested to jurors that Bannon was a political target and painted the main prosecution witness as a politically motivated Democrat with ties to one of the prosecutors. The prosecution countered that Bannon showed disdain for the authority of Congress and needed to be held accountable for his unlawful defiance.

Prosecutor Molly Gaston told jurors the attack represented a "dark day" for America, adding: "There is nothing political about finding out why Jan. 6 happened and making sure it never happens again."

Evan Corcoran, one of Bannon's attorneys, told jurors, "The question is, 'Why? Why was Steve Bannon singled out?"

The trial featured two days of testimony. Prosecutors questioned only two witnesses. The defense called none.

The conviction may strengthen the committee's position as it seeks to secure testimony and documents from others in Trump's orbit. Trump last year asked his associates not to cooperate with the committee, accusing it of trying to hurt him politically, and several of them rebuffed the committee.

Another former Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, was separately was charged with contempt of Congress in June for refusing to appear for a deposition with the committee. Navarro's trial is scheduled to begin in November. read more

The Justice Department opted not to charge two other Trump associates, Mark Meadows and Daniel Scavino, for defying the committee despite a House vote recommending them. Unlike Bannon, Meadows turned over some communications to the committee.

The committee could make multiple referrals to the Justice Department seeking criminal charges against Trump himself, according to its vice chair Liz Cheney. read more

The main prosecution witness was Kristin Amerling, a top committee staffer who testified that Bannon spurned deadlines to respond to the September 2021 subpoena, sought no extensions and offered an invalid rationale for his defiance - a claim by Trump involving a legal doctrine called executive privilege that can keep certain presidential communications confidential.

The Justice Department charged Bannon last November after the Democratic-led House voted the prior month to hold him in contempt. Bannon separately was charged in 2020 with defrauding donors to a private fund-raising effort to boost Trump's project to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump subsequently issued a pardon to Bannon before that case could go to trial. read more

A pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and attacked police with batons, sledgehammers, flag poles, Taser devices, chemical irritants, metal pipes, rocks, metal guard rails and other weapons in a failed effort to block congressional certification of his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

The committee has said Bannon spoke with Trump at least twice on the day before the attack and attended a planning meeting at a Washington hotel. It played a clip of Bannon saying on his right-wing podcast the day before the attack that "all hell is going to break loose tomorrow."

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols limited the scope of the case Bannon's team could present to the jury, moves that one of his lawyers said "badly stymied" the defense. Bannon was barred from arguing that he believed his communications with Trump were subject to executive privilege. He was also prohibited from arguing he relied on legal advice from an attorney in refusing to comply.

Bannon's defense argued that he believed the subpoena's deadlines were flexible and subject to negotiation between his attorney and the committee. In an 11th-hour reversal with the trial looming, Bannon this month announced a willingness to testify in a public hearing before the committee, an offer that prosecutors said did not change the fact that he had already broken the law.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...tion-trump-ex-adviser-bannon-2022-07-22/

So you mean witness after witness who are lifetime Republicans testifying to the truth? Trump's inner circle telling the truth? Sure we are. We watched a bunch of crazed Trumpians trying to stop the certification of our election. Something that is as un-American and un-Patriotic as one can get. And Trump stood by for 187 minutes and did nothing to try and call off his mob.


You mean like with Mike Pence? And see, that's the propaganda you have been convinced into believing. Are there some on the extremes as you suggest? Yes there are. But there are also real republicans and then there are trumpians. They aren't the same thing.


Those who committed crimes should be held accountable. Those who still don't comprehend what trump has done should be pitied.


There you go again deflecting to somethig nobody has even suggested. Not surprised by that.


Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Some of us can't.

Yea right. There is a nazi under every bed. Well, come to think of it we do have our own version of the brown shirts. Only they wear black and masks, because they are gutless coward. And they are using violence to get Trump back in …… oh wait! They hate Trump and everyone who supports him. So they attack and assault people but you lefties are ok with that because they are assaulting the right people.

I see another democrat made the news!!! Tried to murder the republican candidate for governor in New York. Cops busted him ( he failed if you care) and the democrats had him back on the street in just a few hours. I am sure he will find another knife

For the love of me, focusing on other matters is such a poor excuse. We've seen that asserted time and time again. Multiple problems can be addressed at the same time. When I hear that excuse, it reeks of deflection to me. The information is so damning that it causes the loyalists to want to divert attention to something else. You and I probably both agree that the Democrats have a lot of tendencies for incompetence. No arguments. We have to face the facts when it comes to January 6th as well. It's not complicated.