bannon indicted, arrest warrant issued

[HisArpy]

Good.

Now we will see if he's convicted or not based on the evidence rather than the politics.

 

[ll74]

Good.

Now we will see if he's convicted or not based on the evidence rather than the politics.

The evidence is that he was subpoenaed and refused to comply with the subpoena

 

[HisArpy]

The evidence is that he was subpoenaed and refused to comply with the subpoena

Sure enough.

Now tell us, does he have a legally supported basis for doing that? Or does being charged with a crime equal being guilty of a crime?

 

[ll74]

Sure enough.

Now tell us, does he have a legally supported basis for doing that? Or does being charged with a crime equal being guilty of a crime?

For not complying, the only thing needed is for Congress to have the power to create one...and that's already been supported by courts.

If he wants to claim privilege, that can be done during testimony and then the courts might get involved to dispute that

 

[HisArpy]

For not complying, the only thing needed is for Congress to have the power to create one...and that's already been supported by courts.

If he wants to claim privilege, that can be done during testimony and then the courts might get involved to dispute that

Surprise, you found the point I was making. Took you long enough.

 

[ll74]

Surprise, you found the point I was making. Took you long enough.

The only reasoning he has for not complying is political.

 

[HisArpy]

The only reasoning he has for not complying is political.

And? Do you have a point in saying this?

Because I do believe I posted, and I quote...

Good.

Now we will see if he's convicted or not based on the evidence rather than the politics.

 

[ll74]

And? Do you have a point in saying this?

Because I do believe I posted, and I quote...

Got it.

But again...that evidence you're stating won't come until privilege is involved at testimony

 

[HisArpy]

Got it.

But again...that evidence you're stating won't come until privilege is involved at testimony

You sound like a broken record because it suits your narrative of only telling part of the facts.

WHEN isn't the issue. The issue here is that it'll be heard and weighed before either a conviction or an acquittal. At that point ALL the facts will be known. Until then all we have is an indictment/warrant of half a ham sandwich.

 

[ll74]

You sound like a broken record because it suits your narrative of only telling part of the facts.

WHEN isn't the issue. The issue here is that it'll be heard and weighed before either a conviction or an acquittal. At that point ALL the facts will be known. Until then all we have is an indictment/warrant of half a ham sandwich.

All that's being indicted is his failure to appear as compelled.

"All the facts" will be whether he can assert privilege rather than appear. I doubt we'll hear much more than posturing.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

https://i.redd.it/xf1sg48nxcz71.jpg

 

[BidudeinWi]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/doj-steve-bannon-contempt-11-12-21/index.html

So what. He is covered by Executive Privilege.

The Courts just blocked the sham, fraudulent Jan. 6 “committee” from gaining access to the documents they issued a subpoena for. Same reason. Executive Privilege. Iron clad.

 

[Comshaw]

You sound like a broken record because it suits your narrative of only telling part of the facts.

WHEN isn't the issue. The issue here is that it'll be heard and weighed before either a conviction or an acquittal. At that point ALL the facts will be known. Until then all we have is an indictment/warrant of half a ham sandwich.

It appears that you believe he will be acquitted because of a so far hidden, unspoken reason that allowed him to defy a subpoena by congress. I believe Trump tried to intervene with (and the thing Bannon was banking on) his executive privilege argument that was dismissed by the courts. That has already been settled and isn't a reason for Bannon's actions of ignoring a subpoena. I don't see anything else he could use as a defense.

What is it that you think he's going to try to use as a defense that might lead to an acquittal?

Comshaw

 

[butters]

No arrest warrant. He will surrender himself on Monday and will be booked and released. His charges have a maximum of 1 year in jail.

this page of links says different

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=CBHS...0127&q=was+an+arrest+warant+issued+for+bannon

 

[KeithD]

The evidence is that he was subpoenaed and refused to comply with the subpoena

Thanks.

I laughed at Harpy's post--not with him, at him. There's not much hidden evidence in something like this one. Leave it to the dumb Trumpettes to try to create some, though.

 

[pecksniff]

Sure enough.

Now tell us, does he have a legally supported basis for doing that? Or does being charged with a crime equal being guilty of a crime?

Of course it does, in any non-compliant response to a Congressional subpoena.

 

[YooserName]

Illegal possession of weed is a far more serious crime than contempt of congress.

 

[YooserName]

Thanks.

I laughed at Harpy's post--not with him, at him. There's not much hidden evidence in something like this one. Leave it to the dumb Trumpettes to try to create some, though.

You use the word "Trumpette" the same way vicious racists use the N word.

 

[adrina]

Illegal possession of weed is a far more serious crime than contempt of congress.

Yeah... this is why you guys sound insane.

 

[YooserName]

Yeah... this is why you guys sound insane.

Ummm....wut????

 

[adrina]

No confusion about it.

Weed possession being more serious than contempt of congress. What complete ridiculous nonsense.

Not only insane but completely stupid.

 

[CornusKousa]

No confusion about it.

Weed possession being more serious than contempt of congress. What complete ridiculous nonsense.

Not only insane but completely stupid.

Almost as dumb as the "assault weapons" bans.

 

[YooserName]

No confusion about it.

Weed possession being more serious than contempt of congress. What complete ridiculous nonsense.

Not only insane but completely stupid.

Using verifiable facts how many people have been imprisoned for contempt of Congress in the past ten years and how long were their sentences compared with those jailed for weed?

You won't answer.

 

[adrina]

Using verifiable facts how many people have been imprisoned for contempt of Congress in the past ten years and how long were their sentences compared with those jailed for weed?

You won't answer.

Yeah the dumbass punitive war on drugs that did zero to actually reduce drug use?

Weed possession is a joke in comparison to contempt of congress.

Statistics aren't in your favor for your point simply because of population and sample sizes. Regardless however, contempt of congress is a far more serious act. It's just not as easily convertible into wealthy-fare like the war on drugs.

That you think contempt of congress is less serious than weed possession shows how far out of whack your perspective is.

 

[YooserName]

Yeah the dumbass punitive war on drugs that did zero to actually reduce drug use?

Weed possession is a joke in comparison to contempt of congress.

Statistics aren't in your favor for your point simply because of population and sample sizes. Regardless however, contempt of congress is a far more serious act. It's just not as easily convertible into wealthy-fare like the war on drugs.

That you think contempt of congress is less serious than weed possession shows how far out of whack your perspective is.

You said something dumb, I asked you for facts and you couldn't cite any - just like I predicted. Instead you deflected in a lame ass attempt to cover your ass. You're embarrassed because you stepped in a pile of dog shit and couldn't get it off your shoe.

Time for your pudding.