Bannon indicted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

Why the constant whining and moaning about how everything is so unfair. He had every opportunity to testify and avoid this. Choices have consequences.

He's a #$%$ Coward.

HRC, love her or hate her, showed courage, guts, and tenacity by both showing up and testifying for 8 (or was it 10?) hours. This guy is, and all of his defenders are, pieces of sh-- on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

"iTS a KAngArOO CoURT ThEy wONt LeT TrUMpS SiDE bE HEaRD!!!!1!!1!"

I saw that from at least a dozen different MAGA idiots on Twitter. "Won't allow any defense?" "Wouldn't let him testify?"

They asked for Trump's side to testify. Trump, Meadows, Bannon and others refused. So then they sent subpoenas - which are being fought in court.

Trump, Meadows, Bannon have had EVERY opportunity to come forward and tell their side of the story. It's THEY who have refused, it's THEY who are hiding from the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

1. Bannon was in front of Carl Nichols do you not know who he is? MR MAGA to you!
2. Bannon had a very fair trial he literally decided on his own not to go on the stand and defend himself so where the Hell do you get he was not allowed to mount a defense? He was 100% allowed to Judge Nichols asked him many times. FACTS
3. Everyone can read the trial transcript this is not hard.
4. The only kangaroo court was Judge Nichols's instructions to the jury which were quite favorable to Bannon.
5. Bannon didn't talk for a reason and we all know why.
6. He will appeal and 99% won't get an appeal but if he gets a MAGA judge again possibly who knows but our laws say the judge and the jury found him guility currently. FACT.

You are a liar MAGA

[Anonymous]

How can country survive this kind of refusal of facts.

The Despicable thug Steve Bannon who swindled money from the MAGAites are still put on pedestal by the MAGAites because he chose not to mount any defense in a court and was found Guilty!

[Anonymous]

“Lock her up”
“Heads on pikes”
“Oh butI didn’t get a fair trial waaahhh”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

Why the constant whining and moaning about how everything is so unfair. He had every opportunity to testify and avoid this. Choices have consequences.

Who's whining? I just believe in an equal application of justice. If you prosecute Bannon, you must prosecute those Dems that did same during Trump's presidency. That's it, that's all.

Do you think Bannon cares if he goes to jail? He doesn't. I think Dems are short-sighted on this and should have waited for a larger charge against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

"iTS a KAngArOO CoURT ThEy wONt LeT TrUMpS SiDE bE HEaRD!!!!1!!1!"

I saw that from at least a dozen different MAGA idiots on Twitter. "Won't allow any defense?" "Wouldn't let him testify?"

They asked for Trump's side to testify. Trump, Meadows, Bannon and others refused. So then they sent subpoenas - which are being fought in court.

Trump, Meadows, Bannon have had EVERY opportunity to come forward and tell their side of the story. It's THEY who have refused, it's THEY who are hiding from the truth.

So they can prosecute them all one by one. Let's see how that pans out.

[Anonymous]

Democrats will regret this in the long run. Mark my words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

Was Bannon somehow blocked from a defense? My understanding is that he just chose not to put on a defense (which is his right).

Let’s review. He was subpoenaed by Congress to testify. He refused. He was hauled to court because he refused. The prosecution explained why he needed to appear in front of Congress. His defense had nothing to say. He lost.

There was no point. The judge at first disallowed the letter from Trump, then realized he was up the creek without a paddle due to precedence. So he kinda sorta allowed it. Bannon was denied every request he had. So why try to mount a defense. They will appeal, the appeal will be turned down (Obama judge) and then we'll see if the SC takes the case. Max sentence is 2 years, min 2 months. My guess is between now and October they will think long and hard about the consequences of playing hardball. Election year and all.

The SC justices are republican in that they are pro life. But they are very definitely not pro fascism.

They are there to determine legality, not to be weaponized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

1. Bannon was in front of Carl Nichols do you not know who he is? MR MAGA to you!
2. Bannon had a very fair trial he literally decided on his own not to go on the stand and defend himself so where the Hell do you get he was not allowed to mount a defense? He was 100% allowed to Judge Nichols asked him many times. FACTS
3. Everyone can read the trial transcript this is not hard.
4. The only kangaroo court was Judge Nichols's instructions to the jury which were quite favorable to Bannon.
5. Bannon didn't talk for a reason and we all know why.
6. He will appeal and 99% won't get an appeal but if he gets a MAGA judge again possibly who knows but our laws say the judge and the jury found him guility currently. FACT.

You are a liar MAGA

Love comments like these. Disturbed people.

Isn’t your response the very definition of hypocritical? I notice you didn’t refute anything at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

Why the constant whining and moaning about how everything is so unfair. He had every opportunity to testify and avoid this. Choices have consequences.

Who's whining? I just believe in an equal application of justice. If you prosecute Bannon, you must prosecute those Dems that did same during Trump's presidency. That's it, that's all.

Do you think Bannon cares if he goes to jail? He doesn't. I think Dems are short-sighted on this and should have waited for a larger charge against him.

Which dems did the “exact same thing”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard somewhere: Jail has been sentenced to Steve Bannon.

Can you translate this to English and provide a source? Sentencing isn't until October

It’s a joke - as in jail is the thing that will suffer with Bannon there. Just a joke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Lock her up”
“Heads on pikes”
“Oh butI didn’t get a fair trial waaahhh”

I'm completely disgusted at the whiny little conservatives at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will regret this in the long run. Mark my words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty on both count!

Of course! That's what happens when you aren't allowed to mount a defense. SC should overturn it as there's precedence from way back during Nixon's presidency.

I don't like Bannon but I don't like kangaroo courts more. We have to be VERY careful or it will come back to bite us as a party. This makes me very nervous. Bannon is not easily intimidated.

For those speaking about Hillary, she walked into a much friendlier situation.

Why the constant whining and moaning about how everything is so unfair. He had every opportunity to testify and avoid this. Choices have consequences.

Who's whining? I just believe in an equal application of justice. If you prosecute Bannon, you must prosecute those Dems that did same during Trump's presidency. That's it, that's all.

Do you think Bannon cares if he goes to jail? He doesn't. I think Dems are short-sighted on this and should have waited for a larger charge against him.

Which dems did the “exact same thing”?

Yeah, really want to hear what dems you're referring to?