Tulsi Gabbard defends Steve Bannon…

[Marener]

You are the one who does not respect the country.

Bannon openly mocks Congressional subpoenas and does his best to poison the jury pool and claim they are biased against him.

Bannon is the worst and deserves far worse than he will get.

 

[Lesh]

Trump has turned over millions of documents and they are still batting 0.

Trump not being Bannon..were you confused?

Bannon is the one that looks like a skid row drunk

 

[pknopp]

You cropped exculpatory parts.

I quoted his words.

 

[pknopp]

Bannon is being punished for flat out ignoring a subpoena...not perjury.....


Again, if Clapper or anyone else perjured themselves -- it was the DOJ under the Trump admin who was responsible for bringing charges...

It happened under Obama.

 

[pknopp]

And unlike Bannon, Holder actually worked in the Obama Admin at the time.

He also turned over 7,000 documents

We have laws where you can be prosecuted for buying someone a gun that is not legally permitted to own one. Holder should have been charged with that.

 

[blackhawk]

Gabbard is one of few who does not embrace the it’s only wrong when the other side does it mindset.

 

[BS Filter]

If you don't believe we aren't in a civil war you ain't paying attention.

 

[Marener]

Gabbard is one of few who does not embrace the it’s only wrong when the other side does it mindset.

She embraces the “I’m going to say things to get attention” mindset.

 

[pknopp]

She embraces the “I’m going to say things to get attention” mindset.

What she is pointing out should get attention. It won't because of the cultist mindset.

 

[Marener]

What she is pointing out should get attention. It won't because of the cultist mindset.

She’s comparing apples and oranges.

 

[pknopp]

She’s comparing apples and oranges.

She is pointing out an unfair justice system and she is right.

 

[Marener]

She is pointing out an unfair justice system and she is right.

But she’s comparing apples and oranges. Lying to Congress almost never gets prosecuted because it’s so hard to prosecute. Barr wasn’t prosecuted for probably lying about concerns from Robert Mueller about his report. There’s numerous examples of Trump appointees caught in apparent lies but not prosecuted because it’s hard to do.

Roger Stone was prosecuted but they were able to get his emails which showed him talking about lying to Congress. That’s the kind of evidence it takes.

She’s comparing an extremely straight forward case to an extremely difficult case. Bannon’s case was as easy as it gets. There was a subpoena. He didn’t respond. End of case. No need to get in his head. No need to prove he knowingly and willfully lied.

Apples and oranges.

 

[struth]

Holder did respond to the subpoena when he informed Congress that Obama had claimed executive privilege.

Yes, but the Courts rejected that claim: Judge rejects Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records

and then he continued to ignore it....

 

[pknopp]

But she’s comparing apples and oranges. Lying to Congress almost never gets prosecuted because it’s so hard to prosecute.

That's the excuse an administration uses so they are never held accountable for anything.

The Obama administration was lying to us saying they were not spying on the citizens. They sent Clapper out to lie under oath to tell us the same thing. You expect them to make excuses or prosecute themselves?

The really sad part is they went after the one who exposed the lies.

I can not understand defending this.

Barr wasn’t prosecuted for probably lying about concerns from Robert Mueller about his report. There’s numerous examples of Trump appointees caught in apparent lies but not prosecuted because it’s hard to do.

Roger Stone was prosecuted but they were able to get his emails which showed him talking about lying to Congress. That’s the kind of evidence it takes.

She’s comparing an extremely straight forward case to an extremely difficult case. Bannon’s case was as easy as it gets. There was a subpoena. He didn’t respond. End of case. No need to get in his head. No need to prove he knowingly and willfully lied.

Apples and oranges.

Because it's hard is not a reason to not do something.

 

[jc456]

That makes no sense

I agree

 

[Marener]

That's the excuse an administration uses so they are never held accountable for anything.

The Obama administration was lying to us saying they were not spying on the citizens. They sent Clapper out to lie under oath to tell us the same thing. You expect them to make excuses or prosecute themselves?

The really sad part is they went after the one who exposed the lies.

I can not understand defending this.



Because it's hard is not a reason to not do something.

It kind of is when it comes to the law. Prosecution has a cost on those who are prosecuted. We don’t want them indicting people just to see if they can win a case because then they’ll be prosecuting a lot of people who are totally innocent. That’s why DoJ rules say that they need to be more likely than not to win in order to pursue prosecution.

She’s still comparing apples and oranges. The fact that it’s easy to find plenty of people on both sides reasonably able to be accused of lying to Congress demonstrates this isn’t an equal justice issue.

 

[pknopp]

It kind of is when it comes to the law. Prosecution has a cost on those who are prosecuted. We don’t want them indicting people just to see if they can win a case because then they’ll be prosecuting a lot of people who are totally innocent. That’s why DoJ rules say that they need to be more likely than not to win in order to pursue prosecution.

There are no such rules.

She’s still comparing apples and oranges. The fact that it’s easy to find plenty of people on both sides reasonably able to be accused of lying to Congress demonstrates this isn’t an equal justice issue.

She isn't making it about one side.

 

[Marener]

Yes, but the Courts rejected that claim: Judge rejects Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records

and then he continued to ignore it....

That’s not true. They appealed.

 

[Marener]

There are no such rules.



She isn't making it about one side.

Yes, there are such rules.

If she isn’t making about one side, why did she only complain about Obama era officials and failed to mention anyone from Trump?

She is saying this is about weaponization of the DoJ. A big accusation with no real merit given she’s comparing apples and oranges.

 

[struth]

That’s not true. They appealed.

oh did. the appeals court overturn the lower court? can you provide a link for us?