I have absolutely zero interest in being involved in such a conflict, so at the risk of sounding incredibly selfish, I want to know what this Civil War is going to look like. Who will be shooting whom, and where? That sort of thing. I don't have much of a warrior type personality and the only warrior types I have a lot of respect for are a certain number of eco-warriors. If a peaceful resolution cannot be found to preserve democracy, I want out of this loony bin.
But will there really be a civil war. A lot of people talk about it, but only in general and vague terms. What does this supposed war look like?
Violence against those who oppose the tyranny of the minority and dare to speak up and out. You’ll see armed militias firing on peaceful protesters. You’ll see law enforcement taking sides, not always on the side of the law or constitution. You’ll see red states, counties, cities and towns declaring and enforcing “their” laws. You’ll see the “other” being persecuted for being “other.”
The question will become whether the federal government can hold us together or will it be complicit.
This seems like a plausible outcome. If this is how it plays out, I'll need to either move or become as invisible as possible.
I have absolutely zero interest in being involved in such a conflict, so at the risk of sounding incredibly selfish, I want to know what this Civil War is going to look like. Who will be shooting whom, and where? That sort of thing. I don't have much of a warrior type personality and the only warrior types I have a lot of respect for are a certain number of eco-warriors. If a peaceful resolution cannot be found to preserve democracy, I want out of this loony bin.
But will there really be a civil war. A lot of people talk about it, but only in general and vague terms. What does this supposed war look like?
To me it’s not being alarmist. It’s logically following the steps out to the logical conclusion. I think this path is in no way sustainable and we have missed several off ramps along the way. No one took them. Where else would it end?
Once the gap gets this wide between the two americas reconciliation becomes impossible
one group hates Biden so much they are willing to overthrow the government because of it. middle of the road Joe Biden. We didn’t elect Fidel Castro or Stalin. The fact they think we did says a lot
It sure seems like things are heading that way. I agree, reconciliation seems unlikely.
What republicans want is a corrupt plutocracy similar to Russia. And I haven’t heard there’s a civil war brewing there. What’s needed is the right combination of cynicism, belief in misinformation, and a heavy police state. The police state would side with the right wing fascists any left wing violence would be snuffed out pretty quickly. What it would amount to is episodes of group violence here and there, but I din’t think it would be anything on level with a civil war.
This too seems like a plausible outcome.
I too don't see an all out civil war being a thing. People on both sides get angry and violent (more so on the radical right), but at the end of the day what typical Americans want to do more than anything is go home, eat their garbage food, and watch their stupid TV shows. Those thing appeal more to the vast majority than going out and shooting up the town.
I have absolutely zero interest in being involved in such a conflict, so at the risk of sounding incredibly selfish, I want to know what this Civil War is going to look like. Who will be shooting whom, and where? That sort of thing. I don't have much of a warrior type personality and the only warrior types I have a lot of respect for are a certain number of eco-warriors. If a peaceful resolution cannot be found to preserve democracy, I want out of this loony bin.
But will there really be a civil war. A lot of people talk about it, but only in general and vague terms. What does this supposed war look like?
Violence against those who oppose the tyranny of the minority and dare to speak up and out. You’ll see armed militias firing on peaceful protesters. You’ll see law enforcement taking sides, not always on the side of the law or constitution. You’ll see red states, counties, cities and towns declaring and enforcing “their” laws. You’ll see the “other” being persecuted for being “other.”
The question will become whether the federal government can hold us together or will it be complicit.
Basically just watch The Handmaid’s Tale
that’s about it
I’ve thought that as well. When the show started we were like “no way”. Now we just wonder how much longer till it happens. It’s not a matter of if, but when. I screamed at the tv every episode, riled me up for hours.
I won’t last 15 minutes if it happens, but you can guarantee I’ll go down fighting.
I guess I should pick an evening when I don't mine being depressed and watch this. I've read about the movie and the book, know the gist of the story, but haven't held my hand over the flame yet. Egads.
It really is a good show. It definitely pulls you in and makes you wonder, gets under your skin. If the Roe decision upset you then you’re in for a wild ride for sure. Some of it seemed so far fetched all those years ago when it started but now, not so much. Definitely worth your time.
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
Take this for what it’s worth, especially coming from me, but I think you’ve got this whole civil disobedience figured out and I agree with you so far on why, how, and where we’re going from here.
ALSO - did you wear your pro-choice shirt to church? 😂
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
Take this for what it’s worth, especially coming from me, but I think you’ve got this whole civil disobedience figured out and I agree with you so far on why, how, and where we’re going from here.
ALSO - did you wear your pro-choice shirt to church? 😂
Ha. No
i compromised with my wife. We took the kids to support that radical, gay agenda, buzz light year movie the right is so pissed off about
i was disappointed, I was expecting a full on lesbian sex scene. All I got was a family friendly age appropriate gay character
she didn’t want to get thrown out of church.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,293
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
YEah, that all sounds very plausible. Only thing I would change would be to call it an "Un-Civil Cold War".
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Trump is “letting” Bannon testify now. He waved executive privilege that wasn’t his to wave
They shouldn’t take the bait. He’s just going to lie as the timing is very suspicious. They need someone to tell a story that the far right can cling to as the truth and/or a witness to create misdirection and chaos.
The hearings are going well enough without him. It’s only downside IMO
Trump is “letting” Bannon testify now. He waved executive privilege that wasn’t his to wave
They shouldn’t take the bait. He’s just going to lie as the timing is very suspicious. They need someone to tell a story that the far right can cling to as the truth and/or a witness to create misdirection and chaos.
The hearings are going well enough without him. It’s only downside IMO
where is doj at in relation to the bannon contempt case? think that may have something to do with fuckstick waiving privilege that belongs with a sitting president?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Trump is “letting” Bannon testify now. He waved executive privilege that wasn’t his to wave
They shouldn’t take the bait. He’s just going to lie as the timing is very suspicious. They need someone to tell a story that the far right can cling to as the truth and/or a witness to create misdirection and chaos.
The hearings are going well enough without him. It’s only downside IMO
Well the trial is set to begin July 18th, so I think that's part of the change in mind. Now if he declared that he wants to testify but the committee won't talk to him, a jury might become sympathetic.
I predict a sworn testimony that negates everything that could be construed as evidence against Trump that has been collected thus far.
Impossible because he wasn't in the room on Jan 6th to my knowledge, was he? If not, it can't negate anything that happened that day.
They were lying… he was in the room or on speaker phone. Or something like that.
basically, just think like an 8 year old trying to change their story because they got caught. I have small kids, so I’m use to seeing the most elaborate explanations to get out of trouble.
I predict a sworn testimony that negates everything that could be construed as evidence against Trump that has been collected thus far.
Impossible because he wasn't in the room on Jan 6th to my knowledge, was he? If not, it can't negate anything that happened that day.
They were lying… he was in the room or on speaker phone. Or something like that.
Exactly what I was getting at. Very likely to backfire.
Well first, I would be shocked.. shocked if they agree to a public testimony before a private deposition. Depos take hours and hours and you're not doing that on national TV. So I think there is little chance of him being on television without the committee having his sworn depo in hand. And if they don't think it benefits the committee, it's not going to be a public witness.
And sorry, he can't just say "I was in the room" and then you have Pat C., Cassidy, all of these other witnesses saying "no, he wasn't there". That's perjury. Y'all paranoid.
I mean who are we gonna believe Bannon or the coffee girl?
he fired bannon not the coffee girl. So how could you not believe the coffee girl in trump world?
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,” “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.”- DJT
I predict a sworn testimony that negates everything that could be construed as evidence against Trump that has been collected thus far.
Impossible because he wasn't in the room on Jan 6th to my knowledge, was he? If not, it can't negate anything that happened that day.
They were lying… he was in the room or on speaker phone. Or something like that.
Exactly what I was getting at. Very likely to backfire.
Well first, I would be shocked.. shocked if they agree to a public testimony before a private deposition. Depos take hours and hours and you're not doing that on national TV. So I think there is little chance of him being on television without the committee having his sworn depo in hand. And if they don't think it benefits the committee, it's not going to be a public witness.
And sorry, he can't just say "I was in the room" and then you have Pat C., Cassidy, all of these other witnesses saying "no, he wasn't there". That's perjury. Y'all paranoid.
Paranoid would be the fact he waved executive privilege for testimony in a made up committee that doesn’t exist… “ | will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of Unselect committee of political Thugs and Hacks.”
did he actually wave privilege?
if he did then does him waving privilege and Bannon testifying imply that privilege actually exists and thus all the other testimonies of everyone else is privileged and inadmissible in a criminal trial? He didn’t wave it for them.
I predict a sworn testimony that negates everything that could be construed as evidence against Trump that has been collected thus far.
Impossible because he wasn't in the room on Jan 6th to my knowledge, was he? If not, it can't negate anything that happened that day.
They were lying… he was in the room or on speaker phone. Or something like that.
Exactly what I was getting at. Very likely to backfire.
Well first, I would be shocked.. shocked if they agree to a public testimony before a private deposition. Depos take hours and hours and you're not doing that on national TV. So I think there is little chance of him being on television without the committee having his sworn depo in hand. And if they don't think it benefits the committee, it's not going to be a public witness.
And sorry, he can't just say "I was in the room" and then you have Pat C., Cassidy, all of these other witnesses saying "no, he wasn't there". That's perjury. Y'all paranoid.
Paranoid would be the fact he waved executive privilege for testimony in a made up committee that doesn’t exist… “ | will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of Unselect committee of political Thugs and Hacks.”
did he actually wave privilege?
if he did then does him waving privilege and Bannon testifying imply that privilege actually exists and thus all the other testimonies of everyone else is privileged and inadmissible in a criminal trial? He didn’t wave it for them.
It's all a show for them, as usual. You can't waive something that doesn't exist. It's all a question of whether the prosecution for contempt goes forward or not.
It’s to turn the committee hearings into a circus and to make up for McCarthy’s strategic blunder of not appointing Gym Jordan and other bomb throwers to the committee. My guess is the committee has what it needs without Steve O’s testimony but wants to appear impartial. Expect Steve O to go on in length and be hostile. Shadow government, anyone?
It’s to turn the committee hearings into a circus and to make up for McCarthy’s strategic blunder of not appointing Gym Jordan and other bomb throwers to the committee. My guess is the committee has what it needs without Steve O’s testimony but wants to appear impartial. Expect Steve O to go on in length and be hostile. Shadow government, anyone?
this.
there is absolutely nothing for the committee to gain by bringing in a sad circus clown to derail the proceedings.
it is just trump doing his carnival barker "this is must watch tv" crap.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Trump ally Bannon now willing to testify before Jan. 6 panel
By HOPE YEN and FARNOUSH AMIRI
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and ally of Donald Trump who faces criminal charges after months of defying a congressional subpoena over the Capitol riot, has told the House committee investigating the attack that he is now willing to testify.
Bannon's turnabout was conveyed in a letter late Saturday from his attorney, lawmakers said, as the committee prepares to air some of its most striking revelations yet this week against Trump in what may be its final set of hearings.
“I expect that we will be hearing from him and there are many questions that we have for him,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She and other committee members said in television interviews Sunday they intend to have Bannon sit for a private interview, which they typically conduct in a deposition with sworn testimony.
Bannon had been one of the highest-profile Trump-allied holdouts in refusing to testify before the committee, leading to two criminal counts of contempt of Congress last year for resisting the committee’s subpoena. He has argued that his testimony is protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege. The committee contends such a claim is dubious because Trump had fired Bannon from the White House in 2017 and Bannon was thus a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president in the run-up to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
Still, in recent days, as the former president grew frustrated with what he decried as a one-sided presentation by the committee of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Trump said he would waive that privilege claim, according to a letter Saturday to Bannon's lawyer.
“If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks,” Trump wrote.
The committee's Thursday evening hearing will examine the three-hour plus stretch when Trump failed to act as a mob of supporters stormed the Capitol. It will be the first hearing in prime time since the June 9 debut that was viewed by 20 million people.
A hearing Tuesday will focus on the plotting and planning of the insurrection by white nationalist groups such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, and will also highlight testimony taken Friday from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
It comes after surprise testimony last month from former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson provided the most compelling evidence yet that Trump could be linked to a federal crime. Since then, the committee has seen an influx of new information and confidential tips.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., suggested that Bannon “had a change of heart, and after watching, presumably, all of these people come forward, including Cassidy Hutchinson, he’s decided that he wants to come in, and if he wants to come in, I’m certain that the committee would be very interested in hearing from him.”
Bannon's trial on the two criminal counts is July 18. A hearing in his case was scheduled for Monday in federal court in Washington. Bannon has been seeking a delay in his trial to at least fall.
It's unclear how much Bannon intends to cooperate. He has expressed a preference to appear before the committee in a public hearing. The committee is making clear he must first sit for a private interview, typically in a sworn deposition. It's also possible he may opt to appear and then refuse to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“The way that we have treated every single witness is the same, that they come in, they talk to the committee there,” Raskin said. “If they’re going to take a deposition, they’re sworn under oath. It’s videotaped. It’s recorded, and then we take it from there.”
The committee says it wants to hear from Bannon because he “had specific knowledge about the events planned for Jan. 6 before they occurred.” It cited as an example comments that he made on his podcast the day before the riot.
“It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen. OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is strap in,” Bannon said in that podcast. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. ... So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”
House investigators have been digging deeper into the evidence collected so far about the role extremist groups played in the deadly insurrection and what Trump was doing as the violence ensued down the street from the White House.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who will lead Thursday's hearing with Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., described the upcoming testimony as key to providing an extensive timeline of what Trump did and did not do in those critical hours on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021. That includes Trump's tweet criticizing Vice President Mike Pence for lacking “courage” as angry protesters outside the Capitol were heard chanting “Hang Mike Pence” for not challenging Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
“We want to show the American people what was the president doing during that time,” Kinzinger said Sunday. “The rest of the country knew that there was an insurrection. The president obviously had to have known there was an insurrection. So where was he? What was he doing? It’s a very important hearing. Pay attention. Because I think it goes to the heart of what is the oath of a leader.”
Tuesday's hearing will explore efforts to assemble the mob on the National Mall and then organize the march down Pennsylvania Avenue, where some rioters — armed with pipes, bats and bear spray — charged into the Capitol, quickly overrunning the overwhelmed police force. More than 100 police officers were injured, many beaten, bloodied and bruised, that day.
It will also highlight a meeting on Dec. 18, 2020 at the White House in which former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, onetime Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others floated the idea of seizing voting machines and invoking national security emergency powers, to the heated objection from several White House lawyers who argued that Trump needed to accept his defeat, according to Raskin, who will lead Tuesday’s hearing.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It’s to turn the committee hearings into a circus and to make up for McCarthy’s strategic blunder of not appointing Gym Jordan and other bomb throwers to the committee. My guess is the committee has what it needs without Steve O’s testimony but wants to appear impartial. Expect Steve O to go on in length and be hostile. Shadow government, anyone?
this.
there is absolutely nothing for the committee to gain by bringing in a sad circus clown to derail the proceedings.
it is just trump doing his carnival barker "this is must watch tv" crap.
Right, but it won't be public testimony and it's necessary to let him do a depo if he wants to do it. And if he doesn't, press ahead on teh contempt trial.
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
I kinda wanna get a gun. My wife refuses and it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
That said if it was on the table in my household, I'd feel really dirty giving money to a firearm manufacturer because I don't want to contribute to the success of their nonsense.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
I kinda wanna get a gun. My wife refuses and it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
That said if it was on the table in my household, I'd feel really dirty giving money to a firearm manufacturer because I don't want to contribute to the success of their nonsense.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think you’ll find gun sales among liberals is skyrocketing. It’s ironic but several I know have gotten to the point they give up and are buying guns. I don’t think it’s a particularly isolated observation.
they aren’t doing it because they are afraid of burglars. They aren’t comfortable though being at that big of a disadvantage.
Both sides are armed or in the process. That’s a new thing. Liberal prepping, also a new thing. That’s always been the realm of the survivalists on the right
I think if people ask their left leaning friends, a lot would say yes, they have guns now or are seriously considering it. Something is going on and each side views the other as the enemy. Literally, the enemy. It’s not technically war, it’s definitely a Cold War already though, just with each other. It’s a Civil Cold War.
I kinda wanna get a gun. My wife refuses and it's not a hill I'm going to die on.
That said if it was on the table in my household, I'd feel really dirty giving money to a firearm manufacturer because I don't want to contribute to the success of their nonsense.
pawn shop....
It’s like adoption for guns.
It’s already made. You are just giving it a better home. One with books besides the bible and you can give it more attention. Otherwise it’s going to a family of 15 guns.
The fact that he released a statement indicating the he was taking his privileges off (or whatever the the term is) a year and a half after leaving office is.....just beyond stupid. Par for the course though.
well it's consistent. if he's still president, which he thinks he is, privilege is still active.
He truly thinks he won the election and there was fraud. Apparently that’s what the WH council told the committee.WHC disagreed.
a lot of these crimes seem to require him knowing he lost and pressuring overturning legitimate votes. Not sure why WHC offered that up as he really isn’t inside the guy’s head. It’s speculation and definitely helps trump in that area
well it's consistent. if he's still president, which he thinks he is, privilege is still active.
He truly thinks he won the election and there was fraud. Apparently that’s what the WH council told the committee.WHC disagreed.
a lot of these crimes seem to require him knowing he lost and pressuring overturning legitimate votes. Not sure why WHC offered that up as he really isn’t inside the guy’s head. It’s speculation and definitely helps trump in that area
Comments
i compromised with my wife. We took the kids to support that radical, gay agenda, buzz light year movie the right is so pissed off about
i was disappointed, I was expecting a full on lesbian sex scene. All I got was a family friendly age appropriate gay character
she didn’t want to get thrown out of church.
YEah, that all sounds very plausible. Only thing I would change would be to call it an "Un-Civil Cold War".
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
where is doj at in relation to the bannon contempt case? think that may have something to do with fuckstick waiving privilege that belongs with a sitting president?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
if bannon changed his mind or was worried about his own trial that’s one thing.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
basically, just think like an 8 year old trying to change their story because they got caught. I have small kids, so I’m use to seeing the most elaborate explanations to get out of trouble.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
And sorry, he can't just say "I was in the room" and then you have Pat C., Cassidy, all of these other witnesses saying "no, he wasn't there". That's perjury. Y'all paranoid.
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency,” “When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating 17 candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.”- DJT
“ | will waive Executive Privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of Unselect committee of political Thugs and Hacks.”
did he actually wave privilege?
if he did then does him waving privilege and Bannon testifying imply that privilege actually exists and thus all the other testimonies of everyone else is privileged and inadmissible in a criminal trial? He didn’t wave it for them.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
there is absolutely nothing for the committee to gain by bringing in a sad circus clown to derail the proceedings.
it is just trump doing his carnival barker "this is must watch tv" crap.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
WASHINGTON (AP) — Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and ally of Donald Trump who faces criminal charges after months of defying a congressional subpoena over the Capitol riot, has told the House committee investigating the attack that he is now willing to testify.
Bannon's turnabout was conveyed in a letter late Saturday from his attorney, lawmakers said, as the committee prepares to air some of its most striking revelations yet this week against Trump in what may be its final set of hearings.
“I expect that we will be hearing from him and there are many questions that we have for him,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She and other committee members said in television interviews Sunday they intend to have Bannon sit for a private interview, which they typically conduct in a deposition with sworn testimony.
Bannon had been one of the highest-profile Trump-allied holdouts in refusing to testify before the committee, leading to two criminal counts of contempt of Congress last year for resisting the committee’s subpoena. He has argued that his testimony is protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege. The committee contends such a claim is dubious because Trump had fired Bannon from the White House in 2017 and Bannon was thus a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president in the run-up to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
CAPITOL SIEGE
West Virginia man charged with felony in US Capitol riot
4 days in January: Trump push for Capitol coda to 2020 vote
Trump WH counsel Cipollone gives 1/6 testimony, new info
Washington man at Capitol riot sentenced to 21 days prison
Still, in recent days, as the former president grew frustrated with what he decried as a one-sided presentation by the committee of seven Democrats and two Republicans, Trump said he would waive that privilege claim, according to a letter Saturday to Bannon's lawyer.
“If you reach an agreement on a time and place for your testimony, I will waive executive privilege for you, which allows for you to go in and testify truthfully and fairly, as per the request of the unselect committee of political thugs and hacks,” Trump wrote.
The committee's Thursday evening hearing will examine the three-hour plus stretch when Trump failed to act as a mob of supporters stormed the Capitol. It will be the first hearing in prime time since the June 9 debut that was viewed by 20 million people.
A hearing Tuesday will focus on the plotting and planning of the insurrection by white nationalist groups such as the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters, and will also highlight testimony taken Friday from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
It comes after surprise testimony last month from former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson provided the most compelling evidence yet that Trump could be linked to a federal crime. Since then, the committee has seen an influx of new information and confidential tips.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., suggested that Bannon “had a change of heart, and after watching, presumably, all of these people come forward, including Cassidy Hutchinson, he’s decided that he wants to come in, and if he wants to come in, I’m certain that the committee would be very interested in hearing from him.”
Bannon's trial on the two criminal counts is July 18. A hearing in his case was scheduled for Monday in federal court in Washington. Bannon has been seeking a delay in his trial to at least fall.
It's unclear how much Bannon intends to cooperate. He has expressed a preference to appear before the committee in a public hearing. The committee is making clear he must first sit for a private interview, typically in a sworn deposition. It's also possible he may opt to appear and then refuse to answer questions, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“The way that we have treated every single witness is the same, that they come in, they talk to the committee there,” Raskin said. “If they’re going to take a deposition, they’re sworn under oath. It’s videotaped. It’s recorded, and then we take it from there.”
The committee says it wants to hear from Bannon because he “had specific knowledge about the events planned for Jan. 6 before they occurred.” It cited as an example comments that he made on his podcast the day before the riot.
“It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen. OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is strap in,” Bannon said in that podcast. “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. ... So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”
House investigators have been digging deeper into the evidence collected so far about the role extremist groups played in the deadly insurrection and what Trump was doing as the violence ensued down the street from the White House.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who will lead Thursday's hearing with Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., described the upcoming testimony as key to providing an extensive timeline of what Trump did and did not do in those critical hours on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021. That includes Trump's tweet criticizing Vice President Mike Pence for lacking “courage” as angry protesters outside the Capitol were heard chanting “Hang Mike Pence” for not challenging Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.
“We want to show the American people what was the president doing during that time,” Kinzinger said Sunday. “The rest of the country knew that there was an insurrection. The president obviously had to have known there was an insurrection. So where was he? What was he doing? It’s a very important hearing. Pay attention. Because I think it goes to the heart of what is the oath of a leader.”
Tuesday's hearing will explore efforts to assemble the mob on the National Mall and then organize the march down Pennsylvania Avenue, where some rioters — armed with pipes, bats and bear spray — charged into the Capitol, quickly overrunning the overwhelmed police force. More than 100 police officers were injured, many beaten, bloodied and bruised, that day.
It will also highlight a meeting on Dec. 18, 2020 at the White House in which former Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, onetime Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others floated the idea of seizing voting machines and invoking national security emergency powers, to the heated objection from several White House lawyers who argued that Trump needed to accept his defeat, according to Raskin, who will lead Tuesday’s hearing.
continues....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
That said if it was on the table in my household, I'd feel really dirty giving money to a firearm manufacturer because I don't want to contribute to the success of their nonsense.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1. Trump's counsel never invoked executive privilege
2. The prosecution intends to move forward irrespective of his willingness to testify now.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3552888-doj-says-it-interviewed-trumps-attorney-over-bannon-case/
-EV 8/14/93
a lot of these crimes seem to require him knowing he lost and pressuring overturning legitimate votes. Not sure why WHC offered that up as he really isn’t inside the guy’s head. It’s speculation and definitely helps trump in that area
so yeah, he probably still thinks he’s president