Connect with us

Politics, Pork!

Steve Bannon guilty of contempt for ignoring House Jan. 6 committee

Never Pork

Published

2 years ago

on

Embed from Getty Images

Steve Bannon was found guilty Friday of criminal contempt in connection with his defiance of the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, by a jury.

Despite nearly three hours of deliberation, a DC jury found in favor of the Justice Department in a case coming from a House referral that recommended charges be brought against the longtime Trump supporter and former White House top strategist.

As a result, neither Bannon nor any of his supporters took the stand to defend their client. It was only after each day of proceedings that he appeared before reporters and attacked the House January 6 committee, accusing its members of not having the “guts” to testify against him in court.

As a result of Bannon’s refusal to appear before the nine-member committee examining the January 6 attack and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn 2020 election, the House of Representatives voted in October to hold him in contempt. A grand jury charged Bannon on two counts of contempt of Congress within weeks of that vote, each carrying a possible punishment of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

Bannon was found guilty of both counts by an eight-member jury, four of whom were women.

This ex-Trump White House advisor could not claim executive privilege to avoid testifying before a House committee because a federal court had already made several orders severely restricting his arguments. Trump appointee Carl Nichols, who was approved as a judge in 2019, also denied Bannon’s request to argue that he disobeyed the House committee on the advice of his attorney.

Prosecutors stated that Bannon “decided he was above the law” and brazenly snubbed the House committee” when he blew off October deadlines to sit for questioning and turn over subpoenaed records. In a closing argument Friday, assistant US attorney Molly Gaston pointed at Bannon and said, “This is a simple case about a man — that man, Steve Bannon — who didn’t show up.”

He then pointed to Bannon’s declaration in October 2021 that “I stand with Trump” in response to the House subpoena.

Pre-trial rulings weighed heavily on Nichols’ side but allowed them to bring up Bannon’s recent invitation to testify in front of Congress’ House committee after months of stonewalling. Bannon blamed Trump’s purported waiver of executive privilege on a letter he received a week before the trial.

Prosecutor Amanda Vaughn said in her closing argument that Bannon’s choice to testify so suddenly was intended to “convince you that a deadline is not a deadline.”

Vaughn begged the jury, “Give me a break.” In other words, “Don’t be deceived by that.”

Because he had not promised to turn over documents, Vaughn labeled Bannon’s offer as “little more than a ruse.”

In pre-trial court filings, prosecutors criticized Bannon’s decision to offer to testify, calling it a “last-ditch attempt to evade accountability.” It was clear during the trial that they were looking for a way to make Bannon’s offer to testify against him work in his favor.

Vaughn emphasized that the opportunity to testify occurred just before Bannon was scheduled to stand trial in her questioning of Kristin Amerling, a prominent lawyer for the House January 6 committee. Bannon’s months of disobedience have lost the House January 6 committee crucial time in its probe of the Capitol attack and buildup to January 6, said Amerling, as the current Congress nears its end.

“All hell is going to break loose tomorrow,” Bannon predicted on his podcast the day before January 6, according to Amerling’s testimony to the House Jan. 6 committee.

With Amerling’s 20 years of service working for Democratic lawmakers, Corcoran cast doubt on her objectivity in his closing statement.

“Does she seem like the kind of person who always gets what they want?” Inquired Corcoran. “Why did Steve Bannon get all the attention??”

It was also mentioned that Gaston and Amerling were both members of the same reading club in the past, and that they served on the same House committee.

As Corcoran put it, “Make no mistake.” I’m not opposed to book clubs, but I don’t think they’re for me.”

Vaughn questioned Corcoran’s understanding of Amerling’s testimony when he addressed that part of the closing argument of Corcoran.

Ms. Corcoran responded, “I don’t know what courtroom Mr. Corcoran was in,” she said. “But all I learned from that testimony is that Ms. Amerling and Ms. Gaston are book club dropouts.”

What’s Your Take On Steve “Blabber Mouth” Bannon?

Like, Share, Comment, Tweet it Out!

“It’s Your World, You Decide!”

ISTHATPORKS TAKE:

Steve Bannon is a guy that doesn't understand what he sees. Scratch that, he is a guy that understands exactly what he sees. He is part of a long list of life flunkees attached to the web of Donald Trump. A web so vast that the only meaning it has is destruction, jail, and death. Pick the order you want. Now Bannon, from intertwining his energy into Trump is facing Jail. Do we care? NO! Steve Bannon like Trump and the other life flunkees are not impressionable kids, they're grown adults in their 50's,60's, and 70's. You heard that before. They should know better. But, everything their energy does presents and leaves a problem with no solutions. They are the type of individuals that have to learn the hard way. It's our hope that the Judge understands all that is with Steve Bannon and gives the harshest sentence possible. If he understands reading people in full then he should have no problem giving him 1 to 2 years for his pork. It's the only way to deter any future pork from happening. Time is way over that all that is connected to Trump and the man himself is held accountable. Hopefully, this is the start for his more closer companions to get justice. Attacking democracy shouldn't be hard to think about. You either want it or you don't. Trump and Bannon are in the minority. Therefore, they will lose and history certainly won't be kind to them.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Politics, Pork!

Nancy Pelosi’s husband ‘violently attacked’ by assailant hunting for her.

Never Pork

Published

2 years ago

on

October 28, 2022

By

Embed from Getty Images

On Oct. 28 (UPI) — Her office sent a statement on Friday saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, had been attacked by a home invader.

At a press conference held by the San Francisco Police Department, the suspect, 42-year-old David Depape, was named as the attacker. According to Sgt. William Scott, when police arrived, they saw Depape with a hammer and Paul Pelosi, 82, holding onto it.

Then, Depape took the hammer from Paul Pelosi and started hitting him with it until police arrived and took him into custody.

According to reports from CNN, NBC, and the New York Times, citing unnamed law enforcement officials, the assailant entered the couple’s San Francisco home early on Friday morning looking for the Speaker.

After being arrested, Depape was taken into custody and lodged in the San Francisco County Jail on “many other felony” counts, including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, burglary, and more.

“Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy,” the assailant asked Paul Pelosi, according to the sources.

Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was “violently assaulted,” according to a statement released by Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., through spokesman Drew Hammill.

“The attacker is currently in police custody, and the circumstances surrounding the attack are being probed. Mr. Pelosi has been hospitalized and is receiving top-notch care; he is anticipated to make a full recovery “the report indicated.

According to Hammill, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was not in the Bay Area at the time.

The Speaker and her family “request privacy at this time” and “express gratitude to the first responders and medical personnel involved.”

Forensics in San Francisco At 2:27 a.m. PDT, according to Sergeant Adam Lobsinger, police were called to the Pelosi home. Paul Pelosi was rushed to the hospital, and the suspect was taken into jail.

Vice President Joe Biden issued the following statement through White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre:

“The president is praying for Paul Pelosi and for Speaker Pelosi’s whole family. This morning he called Speaker Pelosi to express his support after this horrible attack. He is also very glad that a full recovery is expected. The president continues to condemn all violence and asks that the family’s desire for privacy be respected.”

What’s Your Take?

Like, Share, Comment, Tweet it Out!

“It’s Your World, You Decide!”

Continue Reading

Politics, Pork!

Kari Lake Won’t Say If She’ll Accept Arizona Election Results If She Loses

Never Pork

Published

2 years ago

on

October 16, 2022

By

If she loses to Democrat Katie Hobbs in Arizona on November 8, Republican gubernatorial contender Kari Lake has declined to declare if she will accept defeat.

Lake refused to accept the election results many times when asked by CNN’s “State of the Union” moderator Dana Bash on Sunday. Lake insisted that she was going to win the election.

Lake declared,  “I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that result,” simultaneously saying that Hobbs was a racist.

Bash questioned Lake, “If you lose, will you accept that?” throughout the conversation.

Lake repeated, “I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that results.”

Originally, on October 12, Arizona PBS was going to have a televised discussion between Lake and Hobbs, but Hobbs bowed out, claiming that Lake was “just interested in making a spectacle” and labeling Lake a “conspiracy theorist.”

“Kari Lake has made it clear time and time again that she’s not interested in having substantive, in depth conversations about the issues that matter to Arizonians,” Hobbs told Bash on Sunday’s CNN broadcast. “She only wants a scenario where she can control the dialogue, and she’s refused to sit down in a one-on-one lengthy conversation to really clarify with Arizonians where she is on the issues.”

After the Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission, which had collaborated with PBS to host the debate, backed out, Arizona PBS had planned to interview Lake this Wednesday instead of holding the debate.

Lake has worked with Fox News before. At present, Hobbs is Arizona’s Secretary of State. On Thursday, a Fox 10 Phoenix/InsiderAdvantage survey showed that Lake had a four-point lead over Hobbs in the campaign for governor.

In addition to having the endorsement of the former president, Trump ally and Republican Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga), Lake also has the backing of MyPillow CEO and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell.

She also helps promote Trump’s false allegations that significant voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election, despite the fact that the Justice Department has found no evidence to support such accusations.

According to Lake, both Trump and Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, have “BDE,” or “big dick energy.”

DeSantis, she continued, “has BDE;” she didn’t know if the audience was familiar with the term. Does anyone have any idea what that means? Ask your kids about it later.”

What’s Your Take?

Like, Share, Comment, Tweet it Out!

“It’s Your World. You Decide!”

Continue Reading

Politics, Pork!

Affidavit: Trump residence search triggered by classified records, obstruction

Never Pork

Published

2 years ago

on

August 27, 2022

By

  On Friday, the Justice Department issued a partially redacted search warrant affidavit detailing the reasons FBI investigators visited the Florida property of former President Donald Trump this month.

As part of an ongoing criminal investigation into whether or not Trump illegally removed White House records before he left office in 2021, a search was done. In order to safeguard witnesses and the legitimacy of the inquiry, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart mandated the release of the affidavit while allowing for redactions.

Probable cause is stated for both the existence of classified materials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and for the existence of “evidence of obstruction” there.

The statement also said there was reasonable suspicion that “evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other goods illegally possessed” would be located at Trump’s residence.

After leaving office, presidents are obligated to provide the National Archives with a large quantity of paperwork. Since last year, the National Archives and Records Administration has been pestering Trump to return documents that belong in the archives.

On Friday, an affidavit was made public claiming that federal officials suspected Trump was hiding secret materials after reviewing several boxes of Trump’s donated records to the archives. Several of the papers contained the “HSC” marks that denote top secret information.

According to the affidavit, the National Archives sent the case to the FBI in February. The FBI wanted to know who took the documents from the White House without permission, how they got there, and if Mar-a-Lago was a legitimate storage facility.

There are many potential violations of federal law listed in the affidavit, including a law that makes it illegal to steal materials relevant to national defense and not return them to the United States government. Any person who violates 18 U.S.C. 793 (e) is subject to a 10-year prison sentence and penalties.

The affidavit also refers to 18 U.S.C. 1519, which provides that anybody who obstructs justice may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 20 years.

According to the affidavit, the government made numerous attempts to obtain the files months before the search was conducted.

On June 8th, the government addressed a letter to Trump’s legal team reiterating that “Mar-a-Lago does not have a safe place permitted for the preservation of sensitive material.” All White House items and the secure location where they are being housed were requested in the letter.

The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, among others, had requested that Reinhart unseal the search papers in the interest of openness and transparency.

The Justice Department persuaded Reinhart, he said on Thursday, that certain parts of the affidavit should remain sealed because their release would reveal “(1) the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, and uncharged parties, (2) the investigation’s strategy direction, scope, sources, and methods, and (3) grand jury information.”

According to Reinhart’s analysis, the government proved its case that the withheld information is little and necessary to safeguard the operation.

What’s Your Take?

Like, Share, Comment, Tweet it Out!

“It’s Your World, You Decide!”

Continue Reading

Trending