Steve Bannon Lawyers Up... as Russia Investigators Get Ready to Pounce

a reply to: knoxie

I've never had an opinion on the man. I've also never sourced Breitbart on this site. So please link the time you are referring to when I thought he was wonderful. Only reason I point this out is because everytime I interact with you personally, you just make **** up and then disappear from the thread when called on it.

One thing is obvious in this thread though and that is that the posters in this thread will believe anything that fits their political bias and anything that goes against their political bias is chocked up as Alt-right conspiracies. Hence Bannon being the new hero for the left...hahahahaha!

a reply to: Middleoftheroad


when did I say bannon is a hero?

a reply to: aethertek

Hopefully this will be his chance to stick it to Trump since Bannon is delusional enough to think he can run for president.

So you would believe what he has to say this time, but not in previous instances with negative stories about the left? That is the issue I have with this thread. It's the hypocrisy from the left when referring to previous threads about Bannon's integrity.

What Cult45 should really be worried about is the fact that Bannon chose the same lawyer as Rinsedpubis & the dirty lawyer whose jammed up in the White House.

I'm assuming Cult45 includes myself since I voted for Trump. Which is cool, you can label us all you want, but just know you're immaturity is showing. But, I honestly don't care what lawyer he has or if anything he has to say about Trump or anyone else is damaging. I just want the scum and corrupt out of Washington.

Rinsed is cooperating & is said to have kept "copious" notes on his time in the administration.
Considering what kind of lowlife Bannon is you don't consider the fact that he has a payback portfolio?

Like I said as long as the corruption is being brought forward and dealt with I could careless.

My best guess is this non-story is a distraction from all the dossier news and how it keeps getting more and more apparent the DNC, Obama, the FBI, and DOJ worked together to violate the sitting presidents constitutional rights using foreign agents to target political opponents in the last presidential election.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I just want the scum and corrupt out of Washington.

Then you shouldn't have voted for Trump.

Even before he ran for president it was widely known that Trump was a scumbag, so call me immature all you want, that doesn't absolve you from your ignorant decision.

You chose to support a corrupt carnival barker for the Presidency of the United States.
Why?
Did he "speak" for you?

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I just want the scum and corrupt out of Washington.

Then you shouldn't have voted for Trump.

Even before he ran for president it was widely known that Trump was a scumbag, so call me immature all you want, that doesn't absolve you from your ignorant decision.

You chose to support a corrupt carnival barker for the Presidency of the United States.
Why?
Did he "speak" for you?

K~

Just because you consider me voting for Trump as ignorance, doesn't make it so. Sounds like your upset I exercised my right to vote and didn't vote for who you wanted. I actually did my research on Trump before voting and he's had the same message for 30 years, which aligns with my beliefs on the direction this country needs pushed in. I also know that Trump is the first president in my lifetime to actually follow through with campaign promises. So the only sucker in the room is you from my standpoint.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad


same message for 30 years?

you know he was a registered democrat at one time, right?

he also used to love Hillary and was for a massive tax on the wealthy..

originally posted by: olaru12
www.thedailybeast.com...

uh oh....

It's most likely just a nothingburger

I think that you pretty much said it all!

a reply to: Jiggly

I see know reason he can't be both.
Human beings are complex.
The only reason you guys want the libs to "pick one" is because you don't want to even think about what bannon might know.

You can be a wako and still be a WH insider. Most conspiracy theorists have kernels of truth so it is very possible to be one and also have proof of some crime.

I don't want to speculate on what bannon does or does not know. It will be a few months if not a year or more before we find out .

a reply to: olaru12

First, "bigly" should never be used in the English language.

Now that this is out of the way, you ask question that are based on a premise that you don't know to be factual--you are assuming that Kushner has something on Trump concerning these "collusion" allegations, yet nothing is coming to fruition, and we are seven months into the investigation.

Thus far, all that it has yielded is charges and guilty pleas that have zero to do directly with Donald Trump.

Bannon has already walked back his claims that Kushner's and Trump's meeting were "treasonous," and Bannon is about as trustworthy as a witness as a blind man--it has already been shown, as you have noted, that he has all of the motivation in the world to fabricate, lie, embellish, and mislead concerning statement that he would make on the topic. Notes, emails, tweets, and testimony from individuals like this would mean very little in an honest investigation, even if they couldn't be ignored.

But if you're relying on hope that Kushner has something on Trump and that Bannon will be taken seriously, you're basing your consideration on this matter on foundations that are exceptionally sandy.

But there's always the chance that you're correct, but in my experience in the legal system, if, after seven months and hundreds of interviews and thousands of other forms of data and information at your disposal, you have nothing that even slightly indicates the focus of the investigation has done anything illegal, either you're inept at conducting an investigation (and I don't think that Mueller is inept) or there's most likely nothing to the claimed wrongdoings.

In fact, there's more evidence that shows that this investigation is founded on shady, possibly illegal actions and documents than there is that shows Trump doing anything illegal with the Russians.

a reply to: aethertek

Even before he ran for president it was widely known that Trump was a scumbag, so call me immature all you want, that doesn't absolve you from your ignorant decision.

So vote for the other scumbag named Clinton.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But there's always the chance that you're correct, but in my experience in the legal system, if, after seven months and hundreds of interviews and thousands of other forms of data and information at your disposal, you have nothing that even slightly indicates the focus of the investigation has done anything illegal, either you're inept at conducting an investigation (and I don't think that Mueller is inept) or there's most likely nothing to the claimed wrongdoings.

Really? How long did the Watergate investigations last? 2 years!! 7mo. is just getting started...

Russiagate isn't near over. Mueller has the goods but Bannon will wrap it up in a nice tidy bundle along with Jared and Manafort.

No loyalty for Trump....You reap what you sow Galatians 6:7


www.rollingstone.com...

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: olaru12

We shall see.

But comparing the Mueller investigation to Watergate is quite amusing, as the processes and scope are not the same, nor the hurdles that the investigator is traversing, nor the shady way that the current investigation was sparked.

But in any event, waiting is the name of the game, as we could play the speculation game all day every day and get only get nowhere fast.

And Rolling Stone lost any of its credibility years ago.

a reply to: knoxie

Yes, same message for 30 years. Here I even started the research for ya.



NPR

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I had to stop here.

I'm assuming Cult45 includes myself since I voted for Trump. Which is cool, you can label us all you want, but just know you're immaturity is showing.

Wanna get into "name calling"?
Here's a couple names I want to run by your "immaturity" checklist.
Snowflake & Libtard

Get back to me on those and I'll find more for you.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And how long do you think it should take to investigate a president?
2 years?
how bout 7?

I like the thought of investigators just stop looking after a "determined" amount of time. Would clear our court system out pretty quickly. Should they stop investigating murder after 10 days? Maybe bank robberies get a whole week.

This precedent sounds amazing. Although I'd be happier with the current .. "let's finish the job fully and thoroughly"

a reply to: Eshel

And how long do you think it should take to investigate a president?

1 more year with some 'bombshell' just in time for the midterms.

2 more years after that with another 'bombshell' just in time for the next presidential.

And sometime in between the 3rd release of the 9-11 report.

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I had to stop here.

I'm assuming Cult45 includes myself since I voted for Trump. Which is cool, you can label us all you want, but just know you're immaturity is showing.

Wanna get into "name calling"?
Here's a couple names I want to run by your "immaturity" checklist.
Snowflake & Libtard

Get back to me on those and I'll find more for you.

Yep, 2 words I don't use. Oh and snowflake is the new word for the left. Keep up with the times man.

a reply to: Eshel

While I fully understand that you're trying to be snarky and think that you're being intelligent on the matter, the fact is that there is zero evidence after all of these people coming up on indictments (and some of which are pleading guilty) that point to illegal conduct on behalf of the president. Considering that this was supposed to have occurred in a relatively short and specific timeline, and with the resources available in a special-counsel investigation, there should be SOMETHING--some shred of verifiable illegal activity by Donald Trump--by now that can be shown as justification to continue this special counsel.

But you must understand that my words matter, and I never said that the investigation should end, I just noted that...well, let me just quote myself so that you can re-read my words:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: olaru12

... in my experience in the legal system, if, after seven months and hundreds of interviews and thousands of other forms of data and information at your disposal, you have nothing that even slightly indicates the focus of the investigation has done anything illegal, either you're inept at conducting an investigation (and I don't think that Mueller is inept) or there's most likely nothing to the claimed wrongdoings.

In fact, there's more evidence that shows that this investigation is founded on shady, possibly illegal actions and documents than there is that shows Trump doing anything illegal with the Russians.

I then said in a follow-up comment:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: olaru12

But in any event, waiting is the name of the game, as we could play the speculation game all day every day and get only get nowhere fast.

So, please, share with me exactly where I claim that the investigation should cease by any given period. All that I did was call out the investigation for, at this point, seemingly either being inept (which, again, I noted I don't think that) or that there being no evidence against Trump indicating illegal activity might be pointing to the fact that--dramatic gasp--this may end up just being a witch hunt.

Look, I work with federal investigators for a living, in a federal criminal-investigation division, so I know a LOT (I would gamble on 'much more than you') about investigation timelines and the process for leading up to grand juries and indictments. Feel free not to misinterpret what I say again, as it really doesn't reflect well on your ability to discuss this intelligently.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

We may not have to wait very long....

www.rawstory.com...