Tulsi Gabbard defends Steve Bannon…

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.
So do I!! Congressional subpoena is a joke
 
We hear no one is above the law by assorted blowholes who support this illegitimate administration. Why don't they demand the justice they claim Bannon deserves for the others Gabbard has named? The hypocritical bullshit is ridiculous and only lessens the almost 0 credibility they have.

In a tweet she said:
Steve Bannon has been charged with contempt of Congress & found guilty, while Brennan, Clapper & others who lied to Congress have never been charged or prosecuted. This just shows yet again how the DOJ has been weaponized by those in power to go after their political opponents.

Fn whiner post
 
Who?
Wrong.
looks you got lost somewhere along the way

you just can’t compare prosecuting Bannon with prosecuting Clapper. The offenses are just way too different. Bannon’s prosecution is not a sign of a weaponized DoJ. It’s a sign that Bannon is an asshole who thinks he could get away with anything.
 
looks you got lost somewhere along the way

you just can’t compare prosecuting Bannon with prosecuting Clapper. The offenses are just way too different. Bannon’s prosecution is not a sign of a weaponized DoJ. It’s a sign that Bannon is an asshole who thinks he could get away with anything.
One can’t make up your kinda stupid
 
looks you got lost somewhere along the way

you just can’t compare prosecuting Bannon with prosecuting Clapper. The offenses are just way too different. Bannon’s prosecution is not a sign of a weaponized DoJ. It’s a sign that Bannon is an asshole who thinks he could get away with anything.

Clapper was one example. Others were presented. I personally find Clapper the most offensive because of what he lied over. What he was instructed to lie over.
 
Clapper was one example. Others were presented. I personally find Clapper the most offensive because of what he lied over. What he was instructed to lie over.
If you have proof that he was instructed to lie over it then you might have a case. But it seems you can’t help but fabricate allegations and get upset when the fabrications aren’t prosecuted.

Prosecuting Bannon is not a sign of political persecution. Period. End of story.
 
If you have proof that he was instructed to lie over it then you might have a case. But it seems you can’t help but fabricate allegations and get upset when the fabrications aren’t prosecuted.

Prosecuting Bannon is not a sign of political persecution. Period. End of story.

You know he lied and you understand politics and the huge behind the scene's workings in something like this. I don't understand people defending this, I simply can't.
 
You know he lied and you understand politics and the huge behind the scene's workings in something like this. I don't understand people defending this, I simply can't.
I know a lot of Republicans who lied too, but I wasn’t throwing hissy fits about them not being prosecuted because I know the realities of doing so.

Bannon being prosecuted is not a sign of political persecution.
 
ok...so the lower court opinion stands if it wasn't overturned.

Thanks.
No, the lower court opinion is put on hold while it’s on appeal.

This isn’t complicated. This is what always happens because otherwise there’s no point to an appeal.
 
No, the lower court opinion is put on hold while it’s on appeal.

This isn’t complicated. This is what always happens because otherwise there’s no point to an appeal.
hahah was there a stay? Got a link to that? Oh no...she actually denied Holder's motion to stay...but was kind enough not to hold him in contempt of Court, and gave him a little longer to turn the documents over...which he never did


It wasn’t all good news for Holder, though. Now that she had a chance to consider Holder’s motion, Jackson denied it and made clear that Holder will still have to turn over the documents and gave him until Nov. 3 to do so.

“Though the Court has the discretion to grant a stay in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, pending appeal or otherwise, there is no pending appeal here and the Court has already ruled that defendant has no legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents,” wrote Jackson in her ruling.


Once again, another day, and another day of you simply making stuff up and not knowing what you are talking about
 
hahah was there a stay? Got a link to that? Oh no...she actually denied Holder's motion to stay...but was kind enough not to hold him in contempt of Court, and gave him a little longer to turn the documents over...which he never did


It wasn’t all good news for Holder, though. Now that she had a chance to consider Holder’s motion, Jackson denied it and made clear that Holder will still have to turn over the documents and gave him until Nov. 3 to do so.

“Though the Court has the discretion to grant a stay in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, pending appeal or otherwise, there is no pending appeal here and the Court has already ruled that defendant has no legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents,” wrote Jackson in her ruling.


Once again, another day, and another day of you simply making stuff up and not knowing what you are talking about
Your article is from 2014. How could she deny a motion in 2014 to stay the decision from 2016?

Time doesn’t work that way.
 
I know a lot of Republicans who lied too, but I wasn’t throwing hissy fits about them not being prosecuted because I know the realities of doing so.

Bannon being prosecuted is not a sign of political persecution.

It's a sign of what Gabbard points out. An unjust justice system.
 
It's a sign of what Gabbard points out. An unjust justice system.
It’s not. Next time don’t compare apples and oranges. To make a claim that the same situations are being treated differently, you need the situations to actually be the same.

If she were to compare apples to apples, it looks totally different.
 
Your article is from 2014. How could she deny a motion in 2014 to stay the decision from 2016?

Time doesn’t work that way.
2012 was when obama said EP, and the civil case started

holder continued to refuse to turn docs over, even when order to in 2014, was given an extension and never asked for a stay of the order. He would of had to ask for a stay for the order to not be valid as the court highlights
 

Forum List

Back
Top