1. #82641
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    Bannon was indicted, but hadn't been prosecuted before he was pardoned so double jeopardy wouldn't apply right? I do recall you guys getting rid of that over in NY.
    And accepting the pardon would leads to him accepting guilt for the crime right? Also since he accepted guilt, and the pardon, he can't plead the fifth, right? If anything I suspect a good amount of the pardon aspect can be used against him. Sorry for all the questions but oh man, I love this.
    More specifically, the pardon only works on federal crimes. So the state charges are fair game. But yeah, I'll be curious to see how the whole accepting a pardon works in regards to that, too.
    9

  2. #82642
    Though when I tried to put the WP article in, it just gives an internal error, dunno if they are overrun right now, or if it just doesn't work.

  3. #82643
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Trump pardoned Bannon for crimes he hadn't been convicted of yet. I don't know if it's technically double jeopardy, but he can't be convicted for a crime he was pardoned for.

    Bannon will claim that his acceptance was done just to stick it to the commie librul Deep State, as he is saying now. He will claim it wasn't admission of guilt. It won't matter, the evidence against him looks pretty damning. Let's not forget, his three co-conspirators plead guilty. Bannon doesn't need to admit guilt, they did it for him.

    Bannon's in trouble, maybe "he's fucked" level of trouble, but since NYState has his bank records and looks disfavorably on Trump allies who defraud charities, he has a tough choice coming.

    He could also plead out. Yes, he's claiming this is all a massive partisan hack, and admission of guilt would push that shit back in.

    But the other option is "fight an angry and determined NYState who has enough evidence to convict". There might be a loophole waiting somewhere, and I'm not an expert enough to see it coming. Other than that, he's going to be ground into powder.
    I think he's gonna fight this to the end, he won't fight well, but I suspect he'll want to drag his feet and keep this going as long as he can, while plugging whatever on his podcast is my guess. Even if he doesn't really put up anything really resembling much of a legal argument in the actual court itself much the same way he did with the Congressional subpeona charges, and it's nearly as much a slam dunk as that one was as you've nicely laid out. Oh and I love that this is state so fully televised as well. Will have to stock up on the popcorn.

  4. #82644
    Now that news broke of nuclear and military intelligence, I just had a little time of reflection on how many potential crimes Trump has done just during his Presidency.

    Donald Trump has been credibly accused of committing at least 48 criminal offenses while president or campaigning for the presidency.

    CREW created a table and list of potential crimes in link.

    Staggering indeed. Not all these Trump has been charged and of course some have been closed and exonerated I guess. Shocking part this doesn't include anything with the classified Mar a Largo documents that broke this summer.

    Just my retrospective on how much/many crimes this person has potentially committed as President. These are not jaywalking crimes either. Attempts to steal an election, incite an insurrection and now the removal or stealing of classified documents with some incredibly dangerous charges such as selling classified and possibly outing spies.
    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States…. [It is] nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

    -Isaac Asimov

  5. #82645
    One thing to remember, if you're thinking that Trump would be too stupid to know what to steal; his handlers sure as shit knew what they needed him to steal. What if what he took wasn't random at all, but stolen to order? Or a portion of it was stolen to order, and the handlers told him to steal a bunch of random other stuff to obfuscate?

    This feels like a stable door moment. Because Trump would have wanted to get paid quick, which means the relevant information is already gone.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  6. #82646
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    One thing to remember, if you're thinking that Trump would be too stupid to know what to steal; his handlers sure as shit knew what they needed him to steal. What if what he took wasn't random at all, but stolen to order? Or a portion of it was stolen to order, and the handlers told him to steal a bunch of random other stuff to obfuscate?

    This feels like a stable door moment. Because Trump would have wanted to get paid quick, which means the relevant information is already gone.
    I don't know... Given the staggering level of incompetence that always comes to light when talking about Trump and those he surrounds himself with, I'm not really willing to assume that he has "handlers" who know what the hell they're doing any more than he does.

  7. #82647
    Legendary! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    6,349
    Quote Originally Posted by fwc577 View Post
    So, are you saying that Trump possibly stole secrets regarding Israel's nuclear capabilities, which he likely sold/traded to Russia for something (maybe for handing over Kompromat or for a fat paycheck somewhere) and then Russia maybe sold that information to Iran who, in exchange, are now supplying Russia with drones?

    Because if you're not saying it, then I'm saying that's my theory.
    My money isn't on Russia, it's on the Saudis or another Middle Eastern country for many moneys.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Hmm...I wonder what the justification will be for this one from the MAGAts. "They weren't our country's nuclear secrets, so it doesn't matter!"
    "He's allowed to have them, he's still President." seems more their style.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  8. #82648
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    One thing to remember, if you're thinking that Trump would be too stupid to know what to steal; his handlers sure as shit knew what they needed him to steal. What if what he took wasn't random at all, but stolen to order? Or a portion of it was stolen to order, and the handlers told him to steal a bunch of random other stuff to obfuscate?

    This feels like a stable door moment. Because Trump would have wanted to get paid quick, which means the relevant information is already gone.
    By the time Trump left the white house all the "handlers" had resigned or been fired, the "adults" in the room didn't last long. I don't know if you remember but at the end he had surrounded himself with just lapdogs like Meadows.

  9. #82649
    Quote Originally Posted by beanman12345 View Post
    Bannon was indicted, but hadn't been prosecuted before he was pardoned so double jeopardy wouldn't apply right? I do recall you guys getting rid of that over in NY.
    And accepting the pardon would leads to him accepting guilt for the crime right? Also since he accepted guilt, and the pardon, he can't plead the fifth, right? If anything I suspect a good amount of the pardon aspect can be used against him. Sorry for all the questions but oh man, I love this.
    For the bolded: The supreme court issued a ruling that stated this, but it's not clear it that ruling applies to all pardons or just specifically to the pardon in the case that was under review. Up in the air, but given the way pardons have been used by presidents in the past to free innocent people, likely not.

    For the italicized: No. Pardons only work for federal crimes, and, as he still faces liability at the state level, he's still in criminal jeopardy, can still plead the 5th.

    For the underlined: If prosecutors try to use it against him, I'm going to guess we'd see the case before SCOTUS on appeal. They likely have enough evidence to convict w/out bringing up the pardon at all, so there's no reason to bring legal ambiguity into the trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  10. #82650
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    My money isn't on Russia, it's on the Saudis or another Middle Eastern country for many moneys.
    Very reasonable guess, what with Saudi dictator MBS "investing" $2 billion in Kushner's company, over the objections of Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund management, while bragging about the secret info Kushner gave him to aid his crackdown on disloyal members of the ruling family of Arabia. The Saudi dictatorship is also hosting a series of golf tournaments at Trump golf clubs (with complimentary 9/11 lies by Trump) - I haven't seen records on how much they're paying, but Trump claims its worth billions because of the PR value. (Trump lies about such things reflexively, but its also possible he's covering himself against future discovery of gross overpayment.)

    Fun bonus fact:If Kashoggi or any of MBS' other victims exposed by Kushner and Donald were US intelligence assets, they're potentially facing the death penalty for that (in addition to facing it if they trafficked nuclear weapons data).
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

  11. #82651
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    1> Which nation, I wonder?
    Could well be the simple answer: Russia, so Vlad would know what leaks to plug.

  12. #82652
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    My money isn't on Russia, it's on the Saudis or another Middle Eastern country for many moneys.

    - - - Updated - - -



    "He's allowed to have them, he's still President." seems more their style.
    lol, on a facebook post, one amusing answer I got (and please excuse my language as I'm quoting verbatim);
    because he doesn't answer to corrupt fucktards.

  13. #82653
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    If prosecutors try to use it against him, I'm going to guess we'd see the case before SCOTUS on appeal.
    It is exactly because of this, that I doubt the prosecutors will bring it up. They have enough evidence already -- his bank accounts and his co-conspirators who all plead guilty, admitting what they did was a crime under oath. While that was a federal court and, therefore, they didn't take a deal to testify against Bannon (probably...) the jury will have to face the question "why was Bannon, who took $1 million from a charity and kept it for himself, somehow the only person who didn't knowingly commit a crime?"

  14. #82654
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...rneys-00055084

    Politico has an interesting piece about all the lawyers that Trump is employing across, and many of their respective problems. Counting through, Trump has at least 5 working on the Maralago FBI case, 2 on the NYAG investigation, 3 on the Fulton County investigation, 4 on the Jan. 6 grand jury investigation, 3 on his tax returns, 4 in a lawsuit relating to Clinton, 1 for separate Jan. 6 litigation, and a final one working on Hunter Biden.

    That's a total of 23 lawyers. That's a lot!

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fo...07/id/1086361/

    This one comes via newsmax, but it's still interesting.

    The media are buzzing that major Fox News personalities are attacking former President Donald Trump after the FBI raid, with one speculating Trump was selling secret U.S. documents to Russia.

    "Fox News Sunday" host Eric Shawn on Sunday wondered aloud what Trump could have done with documents seized by the FBI during a raid at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8.

    "More questions are being raised this morning. Did former President Trump try to sell or share the highly classified material to the Russians or to the Saudis or others?" Shawn asked his fellow panelists.
    A fair question, honestly! Which Newsmax seems triggered over. But the followup is better.

    He continued: "Or were the documents innocently mishandled and stored because he thought he had a legal right to have them?"
    Your honor, I was innocently holding onto 10 pound of fentanyl pressed into pill form because I thought I had a legal right to have them!

    Largely, Newsmax is big mad that Fox hosts might even tepidly criticize or be open to criticism of Trump's behavior and actions.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...a-kelly-thiel/

    On Election Day in 2005, then–Stanford sophomore Blake Masters sent two emails to the listserv of his vegetarian co-op. In the first, Masters, now the Republican Senate candidate in Arizona, urged classmates to read an article about a California ballot measure “[i]f you must worship that miserably peculiar American diety [sic] called Democracy.” In the second, he put together a reading list that could have easily served as a crash course in anti-democratic libertarianism.

    Two of the articles were by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a German economist best known for his 2001 jeremiad Democracy: The God That Failed. One, a 1995 paper titled “The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the Idea of a Natural Order,” argued that “the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.” In addition to advocating “the abdication of democracy,” Hoppe wanted people to accept a “natural order” under which a “voluntarily acknowledged ‘natural’ elite—a nobilitas naturalis” reigns supreme.
    More in the article about Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters.

    Just a reminder that these "college educated" conservative "elites" are still largely antidemocratic authoritarians at heart.

  15. #82655
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,753
    FOX News, desperate for anything to change the topic to "our man Trump is a traitor", finally got something!

    A Trump-appointed judge in Louisiana, yes that adds context, had demanded that Fauci turn over emails he sent to social media giants to crack down on misinformation.

    "What crime is he indicted for?"

    None.

    "Accused of?"

    None. This is a civil motion. Apparently, he's being sued for violating First Amendment rights by cracking down on free speech.

    "Oh, Fauci was using his power over the social media branch of the government!"

    Yeah, that's still not a thing. Twitter didn't work for Trump while Trump was in the White House. Oh, right, this is about when Trump was in the White House.

    Fauci, as demonstrated recently, has multiple defenses he could use. He could, for example, claim Executive Privilege. It's stupid, and doesn't fit, but others have done the same. Or, he could claim it's medical information and go with doctor-client. Or just say it's an intrusion into his privacy, or claim the plaintiffs have no standing.

    But I think his response will be "Sure. Here you are."

    Dr. Fauci has never given any indication that he does anything other than follow the facts. I find it highly unlikely any emails he had with anyone were based on lies, conspiracy theories, or fiction. In fact, the lawsuit is about his attempts to stop the lies, conspiracy theories, and fiction. Also, again, Facebook and Twitter don't work for the government. Fauci couldn't order them to do shit, and he doesn't seem like the type that'd threaten them with legal action if they didn't comply.

    Bear in mind, this lawsuit is, basically, someone yelling fire in a crowded theater, the theater manager saying "No, look around, there's clearly no fire, please stop panicking and trampling each other" and someone suing the manager.

    Perfectly legitimate, responsible viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally threatened in the modern public square.
    Just a reminder: if a private company acts on its own accord, it's not unConstitutional. It's just businesses acting in their own best interest.

    I fully expect this story to go nowhere. But it's FOX News' #3 headline, after Trump's rant about being caught and a white teacher murdered by a black guy.

  16. #82656
    I mean...what power does Fauci himself have to force social media companies to do anything? What teeth does he have? What enforcement mechanisms? What penalties for failure to enforce?

    DOES FAUCI HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECRET DENTAL POLICE THAT VERMIN SUPREME HAS BEEN WARNING US ABOUT?!?


  17. #82657
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean...what power does Fauci himself have to force social media companies to do anything?
    None. He could potentially ask the DOJ to prosecute a crime, but, private companies broadcasting conspiracy theories isn't a crime. If it was, OAN would be a smoking crater by now.

  18. #82658
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...-americans-say

    As former President Donald Trump considers launching another bid for the White House, more than six in 10 Americans do not want him to run in 2024, according to a new PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll. And while Trump’s possession of more than 10,000 government documents at his Florida home seems not to have changed the minds of his steady supporters, a plurality of Americans think he has done something illegal.
    So...people still don't like Trump very much overall, but his supporters aren't going anywhere.

  19. #82659
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    36,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    So...people still don't like Trump very much overall, but his supporters aren't going anywhere.
    As usual, this is bad news for the classic Republicans. It should be clear to them by now that they sold their party to the gun nuts, the religious right, and the conspiracy crazies, and it's no longer possible to get it back. The party of small government and personal responsibility is now openly embracing terrorism (yes, a murderous insurrection counts as terrorism) and, as you said, they can't even get the guy who stole nuclear secrets and claimed the FBI planted them off their ticket anymore.

    It's what they deserved. If only someone had warned them!

  20. #82660
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    It's what they deserved. If only someone had warned them!
    I do wonder if he's been asked about his 2016 prediction recently, and if he has any thoughts on its accuracy or what he's doing to attempt to disprove it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/07/bill...dnt-do-it.html

    Former Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday he thinks the Justice Department is “getting very close” to having the evidence to indict Donald Trump — but hopes the agency declines to charge the ex-president.

    Barr, who served under Trump, again criticized a judge’s order authorizing a so-called special master to review the thousands of documents that the FBI seized last month in a raid of Trump’s Florida home Mar-a-Lago.

    Barr said the battle over those materials — many of which bore classification markings — currently boils down to two questions: whether the DOJ can make a case to charge Trump, and whether it should.

    “Will the government be able to make out a technical case, will they have evidence by which — that they could indict somebody on, including him?” Barr said in a Fox News interview, his third appearance on the network in five days.

    “That’s the first question, and I think they’re getting very close to that point, frankly,” said Barr, who led the Justice Department from early 2019 until the final months of the Trump administration.

    “But I think at the end of the day, there’s another question, [which] is do you indict a former president? What will that do to the country, what kind of precedent will that set, will the people really understand that this is not, you know, failing to return a library book, that this was serious,” Barr went on.

    “And so you have to worry about those things, and I hope that those kinds of factors will incline the administration not to indict him, because I don’t want to see him indicted as a former president,” Barr said.

    “But I also think they’ll be under a lot of pressure to indict him, because — one question is, look, if anyone else would have gotten indicted, why not indict him?” he added.
    Reminder: Republicans are the not the party of law and order. They are the party of lawlessness in pursuit of power.

    I do wonder that if Barr is worried that if Trump actually gets indicted/charged that he'll start singing like a bird on literally anything - including making tons of shit up that won't be usable because there won't be a shred of evidence beyond is worthless word - and that folks like Barr would find themselves caught in the crossfire as Trump attempt to throw anyone under the bus to lessen his potential consequences.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •