Steve Bannon indicted in NY!

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 4:59pm

To quote another poster who is quite firm in following, “Innocent until proven guilty.”

NebraskaFootball · August 21, 2020, 4:59pm

Page #1 of the indictment…

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1306611/download

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 5:02pm

Ben_Natuf:

still ain’t millions, and we have no idea other than the allegation itself what they considered “unrelated”. Prosecutors have been known to overstate cases… fairly certain of that. What is a “substantial portion”? how do they connect what he may have spent personally to these funds vs his own money?

You libs never change, i’m not arguing he didn’t do it. i’m saying i’ll wait to see the evidence and hear whatever excuses are forth coming. but because i, or anyone else, isn’t in complete agreement with you, you want to argue they’re “wrong”, “defending criminals”, “biased”. I’m neither of those. Same standard for all. When I hear Bannon’s excuse, which I’m sure will be coming soon, then I can form an opinion that’s reasonable.

That’s reasonable. For opinions on message boards, I form my opinion based on what I read and agree opinions are best formed having heard both sides. Sometimes they evolve as more info is gleaned.

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 5:05pm

So clarify. You seem to be saying that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is that not the case?

Ben_Natuf · August 21, 2020, 5:09pm

cool. i read exerpts, didn’t see that.

NebraskaFootball · August 21, 2020, 5:14pm

Why would you not read the full indictment? It is not that long at all. Only 24 pages, and only is about a 5 minute read through. It may change your “wait and see” philosophy.

LucyLou · August 21, 2020, 5:15pm

I don’t get that either. It is written in plain text. It is not legalese.

Ben_Natuf · August 21, 2020, 5:16pm

this ain’t court. none of us need a courts stamp to form an opinion based on whats known. In Hillary’s case it is known, without any doubt, that she did destroy evidence that was under subpoena, its also known, without doubt, that she with held evidence from investigators. She doesn’t even deny it. those are crimes, her guilt is beyond question. She wasn’t prosecuted because… politics. That’s it, we all know it. That and with a DC jury they probably could have put the hammer in her hand and she likely would not have been convicted. I seriously believe that any case at all with political ramifications should be moved out of DC. I do not believe there is any such thing as a jury in DC that would be unbiased and not act on that bias.

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 5:18pm

Didn’t Republican congressmen also investigate and come up empty?

Ben_Natuf · August 21, 2020, 5:20pm

what makes you think I wouldn’t understand it if it were?

I haven’t read the whole thing, just excerpts. The excerpts about what bannon did are a little light on facts that back up the allegations. The facts will come out and I’ll see them when they do. I’m in no hurry.

Ben_Natuf · August 21, 2020, 5:22pm

Borgia_dude:

Ben_Natuf:

you say that as if Comey’s declining to prosecute (not even his decision to make) was somehow not a political decision and not a legal one. The case was dropped before Trump took office, reopening it would have a appeared just as if not more political than shutting it down was. I don’t like it because imo she should have been prosecuted for the obstruction, but I know why she wasn’t, and I reluctantly at the time agreed not pursuing it was likely best. That doesn’t mean nothing criminal happened, it doesn’t mean the evidence is any lessor than it has always been, and it damned sure don’t mean she didn’t do it. She’s guilty as hell, congrats to her on getting a way with it.

Didn’t Republican congressmen also investigate and come up empty?

my opinion on the matter is not subject to any one elses. It’s mine.

And no-one “came up empty”. Crimes were identified, charges were not pursued. There is a difference.

NebraskaFootball · August 21, 2020, 5:25pm

Clinton hating fantasies not supported by the facts…but certainly parroted by the talking heads of the CEC and regurgitated by its loyal followers…

NebraskaFootball:

The IG performed a massive review of the entire Clinton email investigation. From start to finish. With access to all of the information and processes and work done by investigators, actions taken by Clinton and others, and the final conclusion was that nothing transpired that should have been handled any differently.

You can close your eyes and plug your ears and scream at the clouds to “LOCK HER UP” until you are blue in the face. But in the real world, there has to be evidence of criminal action to indict someone. And Prosecutors have to believe that evidence is unassailable to prosecute. Which is the exact reason why Sessions nor Barr moved forward with an indictment of Clinton. There is nothing to prosecute. As confirmed by Horowitz.

You got played by the CEC, telling you what she did was illegal and criminal and there was some conspiracy afoot by the FBI and Comey to let her off the hook. And yet you chastise others for not thinking for themselves.

NebraskaFootball · August 21, 2020, 5:26pm

Sure there is a difference…

This is a false statement

This is a true statement.

That is the only difference here.

Ben_Natuf · August 21, 2020, 5:29pm

you can keep thinking that bleach bitting and beating hard drives with hammers to keep the information on them from prosecutors isn’t illegal all you wish. Doesn’t bother me how willfully ignorant you choose to be.

margaretms2 · August 21, 2020, 5:30pm

Oh, dear. Not to thread highjack but: What happened?

Jezcoe · August 21, 2020, 5:31pm

Bleach bit.

Take a drink!

WorldWatcher · August 21, 2020, 5:35pm

.
Not on the open board please.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

NebraskaFootball · August 21, 2020, 5:35pm

Kill your radio

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 5:36pm

Ben_Natuf:

Borgia_dude:

Ben_Natuf:

you say that as if Comey’s declining to prosecute (not even his decision to make) was somehow not a political decision and not a legal one. The case was dropped before Trump took office, reopening it would have a appeared just as if not more political than shutting it down was. I don’t like it because imo she should have been prosecuted for the obstruction, but I know why she wasn’t, and I reluctantly at the time agreed not pursuing it was likely best. That doesn’t mean nothing criminal happened, it doesn’t mean the evidence is any lessor than it has always been, and it damned sure don’t mean she didn’t do it. She’s guilty as hell, congrats to her on getting a way with it.

Didn’t Republican congressmen also investigate and come up empty?

my opinion on the matter is not subject to any one elses. It’s mine.

Ok. Who is likely better informed on the details of Hillary’s case? The investigators who were tasked with looking into it and their Republican congressional overseers, or an Internet forum poster who can only read about the evidence that is posted publicly and likely never read a full report on the topic?

Your opinion is less qualified than the investigators, no?

If you say so.

Borgia_dude · August 21, 2020, 5:48pm

And just to make clear…

That would be the IG under Trump.