Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i really like that bottom statue, where the kid is giving it to the cat. if you ever see one of those, find out where they got it? i'll buy one
January 6th hearings on Trump's failed insurrection.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are in the republican party."
Last edited:
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
printer
Well-Known Member
DOJ says it interviewed Trump’s attorney over Bannon case
Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that the Justice Department interviewed former President Trump’s attorney last month regarding their contempt case against Stephen Bannon.
In a court filing submitted just after midnight, prosecutors said the attorney, Justin Clark, told investigators that Trump never asserted executive privilege in response to the subpoena Bannon received last year from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
“On June 29, 2022, former President Donald Trump’s attorney, who sent the letter on which the Defendant claimed his noncompliance was based, confirmed what his correspondence has already established: that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials; that the former President’s counsel never asked or was asked to attend the Defendant’s deposition before the Select Committee; that the Defendant’s attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President’s counsel had told the Defendant’s attorney; and that the former President’s counsel made clear to the Defendant’s attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance,” the filing reads.
The revelations come less than two days after Bannon’s lawyers said in a letter to the House Jan. 6 select committee that their client is now willing to testify before the panel, partly because Trump decided to “waive” any assertions of executive privilege over his former adviser.
“President Trump has provided us with a letter, which is attached, attesting to the fact that back in October 2021, he did invoke executive privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon’s testimony and document production,” Robert Costello, an attorney representing Bannon, wrote to the committee in the July 9 letter.
Justice Department prosecutors said their interview with Clark and other evidence appears to contradict Bannon’s lawyer’s claims to the select committee.
“Even the Defendant’s claim that the reason he is now willing to testify is because the former President is ‘waiving’ executive privilege is subject to question given all of the evidence and law that has been addressed in this case, of which he must be aware, demonstrating that executive privilege never provided a basis for total noncompliance in the first place,” they wrote in the filing.
Bannon’s trial over two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges is set to begin next week.
The prosecutors argued on Monday that Bannon’s sudden willingness to testify does nothing to affect his culpability in the case and asked a judge to prevent the defense from presenting any evidence about his recent change of heart.
“The Defendant’s purported desire to testify now does not erase his past contempt,” the prosecutors wrote.
thehill.com
Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that the Justice Department interviewed former President Trump’s attorney last month regarding their contempt case against Stephen Bannon.
In a court filing submitted just after midnight, prosecutors said the attorney, Justin Clark, told investigators that Trump never asserted executive privilege in response to the subpoena Bannon received last year from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
“On June 29, 2022, former President Donald Trump’s attorney, who sent the letter on which the Defendant claimed his noncompliance was based, confirmed what his correspondence has already established: that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials; that the former President’s counsel never asked or was asked to attend the Defendant’s deposition before the Select Committee; that the Defendant’s attorney misrepresented to the Committee what the former President’s counsel had told the Defendant’s attorney; and that the former President’s counsel made clear to the Defendant’s attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance,” the filing reads.
The revelations come less than two days after Bannon’s lawyers said in a letter to the House Jan. 6 select committee that their client is now willing to testify before the panel, partly because Trump decided to “waive” any assertions of executive privilege over his former adviser.
“President Trump has provided us with a letter, which is attached, attesting to the fact that back in October 2021, he did invoke executive privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon’s testimony and document production,” Robert Costello, an attorney representing Bannon, wrote to the committee in the July 9 letter.
Justice Department prosecutors said their interview with Clark and other evidence appears to contradict Bannon’s lawyer’s claims to the select committee.
“Even the Defendant’s claim that the reason he is now willing to testify is because the former President is ‘waiving’ executive privilege is subject to question given all of the evidence and law that has been addressed in this case, of which he must be aware, demonstrating that executive privilege never provided a basis for total noncompliance in the first place,” they wrote in the filing.
Bannon’s trial over two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges is set to begin next week.
The prosecutors argued on Monday that Bannon’s sudden willingness to testify does nothing to affect his culpability in the case and asked a judge to prevent the defense from presenting any evidence about his recent change of heart.
“The Defendant’s purported desire to testify now does not erase his past contempt,” the prosecutors wrote.
DOJ says it interviewed Trump’s attorney over Bannon case
Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that the Justice Department interviewed former President Trump’s attorney last month regarding their contempt case against Stephen Bannon. In a court fi…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Inside The White House On Election Night As The MAGA Bubble Was Punctured
40,082 views Jul 11, 2022 Alex Holder, the filmmaker behind the new documentary "Unprecedented," which provides an inside look at the final days of the Donald Trump White House, joins Morning Joe. He describes the actions and mood inside the administration, and the dynamic inside the Trump family and their supporters in the days leading up to Jan. 6.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-reveals-investigators-interviewed-trumps-attorney-connection-bannon/story?id=86588798
everything in trumpland is so fucked up, trying to read between lines can drive you insane, just trying to think like they think could do that...
so is trump pissed at bannon for some reason? i know the theory that he will try to use executive privilege as some kind of defense, even though it's been clearly stated numerous times that he never had executive privilege, that is wasn't trump's to give, that he wasn't a government employee at the time, but it seems to me that this is more like trump cutting ties with him. letting his lawyer state that there was never executive privilege seems a lot more like trump throwing him under the bus than any kind of Machiavellian scheme to offer him a plausible defense.
they're misdemeanor charges, but 2 counts could add up to 2 years in prison and 200k in fines...or as little as 2 months and 200 bucks in fines...but i'm thinking they won't go light on his arrogant alcoholic ass. so trump has effectively just abandoned him to a potential 2 years in a cell and 200k in fines? maybe trump got ahold of whatever kompromat that bannon had on him and is now taking revenge?
there is some dynamic in this whole situation that just doesn't make sense...
everything in trumpland is so fucked up, trying to read between lines can drive you insane, just trying to think like they think could do that...
so is trump pissed at bannon for some reason? i know the theory that he will try to use executive privilege as some kind of defense, even though it's been clearly stated numerous times that he never had executive privilege, that is wasn't trump's to give, that he wasn't a government employee at the time, but it seems to me that this is more like trump cutting ties with him. letting his lawyer state that there was never executive privilege seems a lot more like trump throwing him under the bus than any kind of Machiavellian scheme to offer him a plausible defense.
they're misdemeanor charges, but 2 counts could add up to 2 years in prison and 200k in fines...or as little as 2 months and 200 bucks in fines...but i'm thinking they won't go light on his arrogant alcoholic ass. so trump has effectively just abandoned him to a potential 2 years in a cell and 200k in fines? maybe trump got ahold of whatever kompromat that bannon had on him and is now taking revenge?
there is some dynamic in this whole situation that just doesn't make sense...
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Oh I'm sure the DOJ and the J6 panel know a lot more than they are letting on and if Steve ends up in jail he will have one Helluva case of the DTs, the spiders will be crawling on Steve in jail! They are all psychos and will throw anybody under the bus, even Trump. There are and will be a ton of rats and those looking to make squeal deals among this bunch and republicans in general. Convicting Trump on a menu of criminal charges is real easy and each specification and requirements can be met and exceeded several times over from several different angles, the same applies in Georgia.
As I recall, pardoning Bannon was one of Trump's final acts and the pardon was a reward for doing his bidding. He had to show it to a judge, so it probably only covered his crimes, those his buddies are serving 20 years for. If he has anything to say, he can say it in a video taped deposition, same for Steward Rhodes. It's up to the J6 panel if they do it live under oath, with the tape of their previous testimony all racked up and ready to go if they should try something stupid.
Trump pardons Steve Bannon as one of his final acts in office | CNN Politics
President Donald Trump pardoned his former chief strategist Steve Bannon in a last-minute decision made only hours before he is scheduled to depart the White House for a final time.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
that is even more confusing...if trump pardoned him, isn't he REQUIRED to testify if called upon to do so? if that's the case, why isn't he already in jail?Oh I'm sure the DOJ and the J6 panel know a lot more than they are letting on and if Steve ends up in jail he will have one Helluva case of the DTs, the spiders will be crawling on Steve in jail! They are all psychos and will throw anybody under the bus, even Trump. There are and will be a ton of rats and those looking to make squeal deals among this bunch and republicans in general. Convicting Trump on a menu of criminal charges is real easy and each specification and requirements can be met and exceeded several times over from several different angles, the same applies in Georgia.
As I recall, pardoning Bannon was one of Trump's final acts and the pardon was a reward for doing his bidding. He had to show it to a judge, so it probably only covered his crimes, those his buddies are serving 20 years for. If he has anything to say, he can say it in a video taped deposition, same for Steward Rhodes. It's up to the J6 panel if they do it live under oath, with the tape of their previous testimony all racked up and ready to go if they should try something stupid.
Trump pardons Steve Bannon as one of his final acts in office | CNN Politics
President Donald Trump pardoned his former chief strategist Steve Bannon in a last-minute decision made only hours before he is scheduled to depart the White House for a final time.www.cnn.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
You've seen the former DOJ employees and officials on TV and plenty of former prosecutors too, so it should give you an idea of the kind of people filling the DOJ. These are the people Garland has to ride herd on and he also has to maintain their confidence in himself. A sure sign that they are is the lack of resignations and leaks at the DOJ, the place is as tight as a flea's asshole. Busting Donald's ass after the J6 panel puts the case before the public take a lot of heat off Garland, when he does indict Donald. A TV trial in Georgia will take even more heat off the DOJ and allow increased latitude in their investigations while gathering additional evidence in the political realm. Meanwhile Donald is dividing the republicans and for as long as he's loose he will force them to talk about the big lie and not the issues that they need to spin. He's holding rallies, but not running for office, the closer the indictments, the more rallies and the more freaking out and craziness.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The pardon was for previous crimes and was restricted to them as far as I know. Steve ran the propaganda wing for the hardcore base and Nazi's, the people Trump needed for J6. If there are blanket pardons, they are for family and himself, he can't pardon himself, but he will try. Steve already committed the crime of defying a subpoena, this might give him time off or not at all and I think if he is locked up, he fears alcohol withdrawal. We will see, the J6 panel people are all experienced prosecutors and so are many on the panel, if he wants to deal, it will be on their terms.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
JUST IN: judge strikes down all of Bannon’s bullshit motions AND he cannot DELAY his trial. He can’t subpoena Pelosi. He can’t argue trump’s non-existent privilege. Bannon is fucked. Trial starts July 18.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
A little detail on Steve's loss in court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKING: Department of Justice SMACKS DOWN Steve Bannon’s bogus executive privilege argument
29,792 views Jul 11, 2022 The Department of Justice just filed a motion with the federal court in Steve Bannon’s criminal trial to exclude any information about Trump waiving executive since executive privilege doesn’t exist, Bannon’s crime of not responding to the subpoena was committed in the past and what he does now is irrelevant, and Bannon still isn’t complying since he hasn’t turned over any emails, text messages, or other documents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BREAKING: Department of Justice SMACKS DOWN Steve Bannon’s bogus executive privilege argument
29,792 views Jul 11, 2022 The Department of Justice just filed a motion with the federal court in Steve Bannon’s criminal trial to exclude any information about Trump waiving executive since executive privilege doesn’t exist, Bannon’s crime of not responding to the subpoena was committed in the past and what he does now is irrelevant, and Bannon still isn’t complying since he hasn’t turned over any emails, text messages, or other documents.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Can using a burner phone to communicate a conspiracy by text message or app, then disposing of the phone or destroying it, be destroying or tampering with evidence and with intent too! If you use a phone as part of a crime and get rid of it because it contains evidence of a crime, that should also be a crime. Often the FBI has another phone with the other end of the conversation on it. This bunch at the Willard used burner phones, at least the ones with brains did, but then again they had several documentary film makers with them, so that does not indicate brains.
Bannon actually did something that warranted a pardon from Trump, but it was for an earlier crime unconnected to Trump himself and no risk to him. Trump gave it to him on the last day and he made sure Bannon earned it, before and after the election. The FBI and a grand jury can ask Steve all about these things and it is a crime to lie to them, or the J6 panel.
Bannon actually did something that warranted a pardon from Trump, but it was for an earlier crime unconnected to Trump himself and no risk to him. Trump gave it to him on the last day and he made sure Bannon earned it, before and after the election. The FBI and a grand jury can ask Steve all about these things and it is a crime to lie to them, or the J6 panel.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Judge Denies Steve Bannon's Request To Delay Contempt Of Congress Trial
19,095 views Jul 11, 2022 A judge has denied Steve Bannon's request to delay his trial for contempt of Congress charges after he made an offer to cooperate with the January 6 committee. NBC's Ryan Reilly has details.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It will give Steve a chance to sober up, regain his health and write is manifesto, his Mien Kampf, that he can ghost write for Donald like Rudolf Hess did for Hitler. Though I have a feeling other charges might be pending against Stevo while he is in the crowbar hotel, no rush on this one, set him aside for a spell. I figure after he gets inside he will be screaming for the DOJ and a 5th of whatever it takes to keep the DTs and hallucinations away! I figure this guy will spill his guts before this is over, it might be better for him if he did it before his trial, there is a mandatory minimum and the DOJ dropping the charges before the trial is the only way out. However, coming clean would open him up to even more serious federal charges of conspiracy etc. Steve is fucked, he might as well save the money and plead out, his lawyer and the judge said as much, he has no legal defense.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Let's talk about Day 7 of the hearings, and maybe day 8....
printer
Well-Known Member
Barr subpoenaed in Dominion defamation case against Fox News
Former Attorney General William Barr has been issued a subpoena in connection with the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News, court records show.
A filing made in Delaware Superior Court and dated July 8 indicated Barr had been sent a subpoena as Dominion works to prove Fox knowingly aired false info
Dominion filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox last March, alleging the conservative cable news giant had aired defamatory claims made on its airwaves falsely suggesting the company engaged in fraud during the 2020 election.
Barr famously broke with former President Trump following the election, saying the Department of Justice had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election, as the former president and many of his allies had claimed.
The former attorney general’s comments on Trump and his claims of voter fraud have been a central feature of the evidence laid out by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud,” Barr said during taped testimony played during a recent committee hearing, adding nothing he’d seen since then had changed his opinion.
In a recent filing, Dominion’s legal team argued Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch “decided to promote former President Trump’s narrative after Trump’s condemnation of Fox damaged its stock and viewership.”
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis last month denied a motion from Fox Corp. to dismiss the the suit, writing that the voting systems company “adequately states a claim for defamation per se against Fox Corporation based on its theory of direct liability.”
Fox has moved to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds, saying in a recent statement that “limiting the ability of the press to report freely on the American election process stands in stark contrast to the liberties on which this nation was founded.”
“We are confident we will prevail as freedom of the press is foundational to our democracy and must be protected, in addition to the damages claims being outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis, serving as nothing more than a flagrant attempt to deter our journalists from doing their jobs,” the network added.
The company announced last week that it had hired Dan Webb, a veteran defense attorney and high-profile lawyer, as part of its legal team fighting the Dominion case.
Dominion and Smartmatic, another voting systems company, have also sued a number of smaller conservative cable networks for airing false claims about the election.
thehill.com
Former Attorney General William Barr has been issued a subpoena in connection with the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News, court records show.
A filing made in Delaware Superior Court and dated July 8 indicated Barr had been sent a subpoena as Dominion works to prove Fox knowingly aired false info
Dominion filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox last March, alleging the conservative cable news giant had aired defamatory claims made on its airwaves falsely suggesting the company engaged in fraud during the 2020 election.
Barr famously broke with former President Trump following the election, saying the Department of Justice had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election, as the former president and many of his allies had claimed.
The former attorney general’s comments on Trump and his claims of voter fraud have been a central feature of the evidence laid out by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud,” Barr said during taped testimony played during a recent committee hearing, adding nothing he’d seen since then had changed his opinion.
In a recent filing, Dominion’s legal team argued Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch “decided to promote former President Trump’s narrative after Trump’s condemnation of Fox damaged its stock and viewership.”
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis last month denied a motion from Fox Corp. to dismiss the the suit, writing that the voting systems company “adequately states a claim for defamation per se against Fox Corporation based on its theory of direct liability.”
Fox has moved to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds, saying in a recent statement that “limiting the ability of the press to report freely on the American election process stands in stark contrast to the liberties on which this nation was founded.”
“We are confident we will prevail as freedom of the press is foundational to our democracy and must be protected, in addition to the damages claims being outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis, serving as nothing more than a flagrant attempt to deter our journalists from doing their jobs,” the network added.
The company announced last week that it had hired Dan Webb, a veteran defense attorney and high-profile lawyer, as part of its legal team fighting the Dominion case.
Dominion and Smartmatic, another voting systems company, have also sued a number of smaller conservative cable networks for airing false claims about the election.
Barr subpoenaed in Dominion defamation case against Fox News
Former Attorney General William Barr has been issued a subpoena in connection with the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News, court records show. A filing made in Delaware Sup…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
"Bannon faces a federal case that began in August when New York federal prosecutors charged him and three others with defrauding donors of more than a million dollars as part of a fundraising campaign purportedly aimed at supporting Trump's border wall. "
Bannon was pardoned for stealing money (Trump can relate) from stupid people. The pardon has nothing to do (or it should not) with the J6.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
got it