With Bannon sentenced to jail for this crime, what might happen to Merrick Garland in the current scramble to appear like the law is working?
What's really on the Biden tapes?
Contempt of Congress.
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Greyparrot
Bannon had executive privilege and would be breaking the law by testifying. They claim that Biden said it was okay but executive privilege does not transfer to the next president in that way.
By the same logic when Trump gets back in the entire Biden administration can be subpoena and put in jail when they all refuse to break privilege.
It's no mystery why Trumps closest allies are being put in prison this close to the election.
Now I believe Trump when he says he won't seek revenge. However, the individuals who are using lawfare to subvert democracy (breaking a gentleman's agreement the same way they did with Nixon), need to be held to account.
I am convinced judges, lawyers and law makers who are republican and want to make a name for themselves will take action, they will get justice and in doing so will earn my undying loyalty no matter how stupid their policies are In their political career.
-->
@Greyparrot
With Bannon sentenced to jail for this crime, what might happen to Merrick Garland in the current scramble to appear like the law is working?
It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers bend over backwards to justify both being outraged at the democrats weaponization of the justice department, and advocating for the republicans weaponization of the justice department… without plainly admitting that this entire pretend outrage session is really about nothing more than their own partisan hackery.
-->
@WyIted
Bannon had executive privilege and would be breaking the law by testifying.
No he didn’t and no he wouldn’t. Executive privilege does not apply to people who are not serving in the administration.
Now I believe Trump when he says he won't seek revenge.
And what about when he does?
I am convinced judges, lawyers and law makers who are republican and want to make a name for themselves will take action, they will get justice and in doing so will earn my undying loyalty no matter how stupid their policies are In their political career.
Translation: politics is far more to you a team sport than having anything to do with improving people’s lives.
-->
@Double_R
It never ceases to amaze me how often you do not answer the question.
-->
@Double_R
And what about when he does?
Then that's fine. If somebody weaponizes the justice system and then it is weaponized against them it seems fair, but he has stated he wouldn't and his history indicates this is true
-->
@Greyparrot
It never ceases to amaze me how often you do not answer the question.
Because your questions are stupid.
What will happen to Garland? Under a Biden administration - nothing, because he hasn’t done anything. Under a Trump administration? Who tf knows what BS Trump’s minions will conjure up as political revenge.
The question you would ask if you were looking for a serious conversation is ‘what should happen to Garland?’ to which the reasonable answer is nothing, but at least then you would have the floor to provide an answer that you yourself would actually have the burden to substantiate. So of course you wouldn’t go that route.
What's really on the Biden tapes? The same damn thing we’ve already been made aware of through the transcripts and through the testimony of the special counsel appointed by Donald Trump. The only reason republicans want this is because they want to search for a soundbite they can use to slander Biden. It’s pathetic and this attempt to ask for something with no valid reason and then act as if the DOJ’s refusal to play their silly political game is somehow suspicious is just stupid.
-->
@WyIted
And what about when he does?Then that's fine. If somebody weaponizes the justice system and then it is weaponized against them it seems fair, but he has stated he wouldn't and his history indicates this is true
I think you misunderstood the question. You said you believe him when he says he won’t use the DOJ for revenge, but he also says (or strongly implies since he knows better than to just flat out admit it) that he will, so why do you believe him when he says that which is politically expedient but when he repeatedly says things that are politically toxic you brush it off?
-->
@Double_R
What will happen to Garland? Under a Biden administration - nothing, because he hasn’t done anything
Cool, let's see how that pans out.
-->
@Double_R
Because you are not interpreting his comments in a generous way. Likely due to tds. He is not Hitler he is not setting up camps and it is silly to simultaneously weaponize the DOJ while crying that Trump may do the ssn
Did committee chair No Jacket I see Nothing Jordan refuse to comply with a 1/6 select committee supeona?
-->
@WyIted
Bannon had executive privilege and would be breaking the law by testifying.
False. That’s why he’s going to jail.
They claim that Biden said it was okay but executive privilege does not transfer to the next president in that way.
Yes, it does.
Now I believe Trump when he says he won't seek revenge
Actually, he said the opposite
-->
@Double_R
Because your questions are stupid.
lol.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think we may see the supreme court rule on these things at some point to figure out who is correct here, but you are looking through a partisan lense. I miss democrats like Obama who could actually see things through a non partisan lense at times and see when a policy or interpretation of law, while beneficial now could result in disaster down the road.
You remember when Obama banned the ability for Americans to sue foreigners and both sides of the aisle were passed at him?
Fo you think there is a single person like that left in the Democratic party?
It's just "This hurts Trump so it is the correct interpretation of the law" instead of Obama's reasoned approach.
Cool, let's see how that pans out.
About the same as the Biden recession panned out and the DeeSantis candidacy you so boldly predicted
-->
@WyIted
I miss democrats like Obama who could actually see things through a non partisan lense at times and see when a policy or interpretation of law
Oh ya, the Republicans treated Obama so fairly because he was non partisan
but you are looking through a partisan lense.
No, just applying facts and reality. Something MAGA MORONS are adverse to.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Oh ya, the Republicans treated Obama so fairly because he was non partisan
I think he was trying to govern well, not be liked.
No, just applying facts and reality. Something MAGA MORONS are adverse to.
Yes it is just a coincidence all of your views align perfectly with Robert Byrd and you have never once deviated
-->
@WyIted
Yes it is just a coincidence all of your views align perfectly with Robert Byrd and you have never once deviated
Ya, exactly like Robert Byrd. I’m a big big Byrd supporter.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You know what. Big bird is pretty cool. I have no beef with him .
-->
@WyIted
Because you are not interpreting his comments in a generous way.
Correct, I don’t care about being generous, I care about being reasonable. And being reasonable means recognizing that when someone shows you who they are you should believe them.
Imagine just for one second that Trump truly had no intention of being a dictator or abusing his power - that his values and principals truly aligned with that of the constitution. When asked whether he intended to be a dictator, wouldn’t he just say “no, of course not” rather than, “nope, except for day one”?
When giving a speech about how the justice system is being abused by the democrats, wouldn’t he as the guy who values the rule of law be out there galvanizing people to figure out how we can fix it for good instead of musing about how he’s going to indict Hillary Clinton?
Wouldn’t he when having his hand held by sycophantic interviewers practically begging him to say he is not going to abuse power just agree with them rather than talking about how he may have to do the same thing because it was done to him?
Of course he would, because that’s what it looks like when the person speaking actually believes those things. That’s not TDS, that’s common sense.
He is not Hitler he is not setting up camps
No, but the people he is inspiring and whom he is most likely to surround himself with if he gets reelected are planning such types of things. A second Trump term will be nothing like the first.
it is silly to simultaneously weaponize the DOJ while crying that Trump may do the ssn
The DOJ isn’t weaponized, this is a complete nonsense conspiracy theory right on par with 9/11 and Sandy Hook
-->
@Double_R
Imagine just for one second that Trump truly had no intention of being a dictator or abusing his power - that his values and principals truly aligned with that of the constitution. When asked whether he intended to be a dictator, wouldn’t he just say “no, of course not” rather than, “nope, except for day one”?
That was quite obviously a reference to Biden doing a record amount of executive orders day 1. I think George Bush said it would be easier if he were a dictator and the left made similar statements that he was also about to genocide people and declare himself dictator. I know because I was a leftist then and was convinced he would cancel elections.
Wouldn’t he when having his hand held by sycophantic interviewers practically begging him to say he is not going to abuse power just agree with them rather than talking about how he may have to do the same thing because it was done to him?
I just saw an interview 5 minutes ago where he said he was going to be too focused fixing what is wrong with this country to have time for revenge.
No, but the people he is inspiring and whom he is most likely to surround himself with if he gets reelected are planning such types of things. A second Trump term will be nothing like the first.
I believe the heritage foundation is surrounding him with people and they have a controversial plan to keep Republicans competitive because we were recently and may still be on the verge of Republicans never being able to ever win another presidential election again. I forget the name of the heritage foundation plan. He looks like he is keeping vivek ramaswamy close. Vivek is a libertarian who enjoys nationalist rhetoric and opposed many of the fascist tactics used by Nikki Haley and DeSantis. With Haley the plan to eliminate online privacy and Desantis's plan to publicly name and shame leftist protestors who were pro hamas. Vivek is anti hamas but a proponent of free speech.
So he is likely going to be surrounded by libertarians, heritage foundation nation people and some boring VP pick. He is obviously using Roger stones playbook so it will be somebody like Marco Rubio, but not him.
The DOJ isn’t weaponized, this is a complete nonsense conspiracy theory right on par with 9/11 and Sandy Hook
I should have been more general. Lawfare is obviously taking place and my fear is that we are in a bind
Lawfare must be punished but if it is punished by engaging in it yourself than you risk turning us into a banana Republic where this ship goes on back and forth.
I think they will just push some policies to reform the justice system and a few rogue judges and lawyers will attempt to make a name for themselves but it will fizzle out quickly.
I just know that I cannot afford for Biden to get another term. I do think that the inflation we saw where only millionaires can afford to go to McDonalda will get worse and that things like Russia taking its ships off of Cuba to intimidate us will get worse if the Russians sense weakness.
-->
@Double_R
Before you invest too much energy in debating me. I want you to know I live in a blue state. Yes it is a shithole because it is a blue state.
I have zero effect on this elections outcome. I will walk in a vote for Trump but the vote might as well go into the trash, this state is solidly blue
-->
@Double_R
It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers bend over backwards to justify both being outraged at the democrats weaponization of the justice department, and advocating for the republicans weaponization of the justice department
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They have sown the wind, and so they shall reap the whirlwind." - Arthur Harris
Does it amaze you how the royal airforce can justify both being outraged at terror bombing and advocating for the allies to start terror bombing of their own?
It's called escalation. "How dare you, have a taste of your own medicine if you want to play that game", it's as old as mankind and still just as necessary when somebody wants to change the rules of engagement. If you don't match escalation (and the enemy is left with an advantage) you may as well surrender now and save everyone the suffering of a long slow defeat.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's called escalation.
Escalation only applies if your view of the circumstances surrounding the action are that the parties are already engaged in some kind of warfare, at which point the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is not wrong any more than it is wrong to kill someone in combat.
In other words you’re trying to have it both ways. Either the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is wrong because that’s not how we do things in this country, in which case you would feel obligated to ensure the rule of law is restored, or the justice system is just a tool to be weaponized in which case your only real gripe is that the democrats beat you to it.
Either way, you’re showing yourself to be a hypocrite. You can’t claim to value the rule of law while vowing to weaponize it.
You can claim democrats are liars, but at least our stated values are straight.
I wouldn't state destroying the country to prevent an Orangeman(or anyone else) from abolishing the self-serving government class as a "value"
Stalin and Mao would disagree though.
-->
@Double_R
It's called escalation.Escalation only applies if your view of the circumstances surrounding the action are that the parties are already engaged in some kind of warfare, at which point the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is not wrong any more than it is wrong to kill someone in combat.
...but it is wrong to kill someone in combat for the sake of fascists...
In other words you’re trying to have it both ways. Either the democrats weaponization of the DOJ is wrong because that’s not how we do things in this country, in which case you would feel obligated to ensure the rule of law is restored, or the justice system is just a tool to be weaponized in which case your only real gripe is that the democrats beat you to it.
Win first, then peace. Fighting back doesn't mean you don't want peace, especially when they'll still kill you (do lawfare and subvert democracy) whether you surrender or not.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
.but it is wrong to kill someone in combat for the sake of fascists...
We are about to win. I wouldn't concern yourself too much. The main focus after winning is to make the party competitive for the next 100 years, but that is at the executive level, and I say competitive because we are not for a one party state like leftists are.
At other levels, now that the Dick Cheney Republicans are gone, it is a fiight and simultaneously an alliance between nationalists and libertarians. 2 opposing ideologies but both are ideologies that are vastly superior to turning AMlmerica into Venezuela like the left wants.
-->
@WyIted
I don't want Republicans to win if they will be as corrupt as the other party.
Also, what do you think is on the audio tapes? Why is it so important to hide from the public?
-->
@Greyparrot
It's always context. It's like with the J6 tapes. You get to zoom in on outliers to create a narrative. It's the same shit they do when they create villains in reality shows like desperate housewives.
-->
@WyIted
It's the same shit they do when they create villains in reality shows like desperate housewives.