107
"All of this is about one thing. Shutting down the MAGA movement. Shutting down grassroots conservatives, shutting down President Trump,"
Or, you know, punishing criminals who have been convicted in a court of law.
Shutting down MAGA and punishing criminals is the same thing
"All of this is about one thing. Shutting down the local art scene. Shutting down creativity, shutting down free expression."
"Nice try, kiddo, but you're still grounded for coloring on the walls. Also, that's three things."
Edit: Turned it into a Calvin & Hobbes comic
Oh I could have so much fun with this meme template.
I want Trump's probation terms to include a (pretty standard) clause against associating with people who have a criminal record.
How many of the rest of us get to appeal our four month prison sentences to the Supreme Court of the United States of America with any expectation that they would hear the case?
I was thinking of appealing my parking ticket to the Supreme Court by using the defense that the officer that issued the ticket did it to keep me from voting and .... uh ... freedom.
lmao. A bunch of states actually have Civil Rights era laws on the books that say law enforcement can't harass you to or from the polls. So if you live in the right state and were cited literally at the polling place, you could probably argue your way out of the ticket.
Yeah, I’d be scared of going to prison if I were him too… That drunken lout is probably going to end up in the infirmary with the DTs by the 4th of July.
Steve Bannon’s recent Google searches:
—how do I make toilet wine
—how do I get a bribe to Alito & Thomas
—What is Harlan Crow’s phone number
MAGA is the new Nazi
And the Republican party is now the MAGA party...
You know what's weird? Trying to think about who are the people to line up in little pairings of who represents who, actually gave me a weird sense of hope, like it's very early in the whole process compared to looking back on the Nazis, and it's not going anywhere near as well as it did for them in Germany. Putting the two next to each other (Beer Hall Putsch vs January 6th, Goebbels vs Bannon, SA versus Oathkeepers, things like that) makes the MAGA people look pretty wimpy. People looked at the Nazis like a joke early on but they had real combat experience, organization, they got shit done, they weren't afraid to get in the streets by the thousands and fight this actual war that the Right on the internet keeps talking about but seems (a couple outliers aside) to be constantly waiting for someone else to instigate and then win, for them.
Himmler was like this suspectedly wimpy guy, like oh he never saw combat, he only single handedly oversaw the construction of and then commanded a million-strong paramilitary force and then supervised the extermination of six million people. If that's the bar for "we're not sure about this guy," then what the fuck are you going to say in the credit of Steve Bannon or Jared Kushner and their displayed abilities. Nothing, that's what.
On the other hand, the society they're trying to take over is itself a lot more vulnerable and less vigorous and more sitting-on-TikTok based, so maybe it's not any real assurance of safety.
Absolutely without fail, the arc is:
- We're so strong that no one can stop us
- Might makes right
- Buddy you better not mess with me, we can ruin and throw aside like garbage anyone who displeases us
- Ma they throwin me aside like garbage, please help, it's not fair
Somehow they never get the idea that maybe there's a better way, that they might not always be able to count on being the fuck-er and not the fuck-ee.
Fuck this guy, put him in general population.
Refusing a subpoena by Congress isn't what Bannon is hoping for. If you believe that Congress is investigating is outside their scope, it's too political to be a lawful investigation, you still have to answer the subpoena and then testify under oath your belief as such. This was something pointed out in Watkins.
So the only way SCOTUS can overturn the conviction is finding some new ability to ignore a subpoena, which I'm not sure how they can justify a new power without it also coming off as SCOTUS removing Congressional power, a clear violation of the separation of power.
You can walk into a hearing and literally sit there and not answer. You can indicate that they're full of themselves. Your 5th Amendment right overrides government oversight in personal matters. They were seeking Bannon's involvement in the Jan. 6 attack, he literally could have gotten up there, gave them the middle finger, indicated his fifth amendment right, and sat there with arms crossed the rest of the time. And he totally could have had SCOTUS get him off scotfree with a Watkins argument, the end.
But if you DO NOT even fucking go, well you've just shot yourself in the foot. Because now, SCOTUS has to invent something to save your dumbass, and reasons to invent a new thing that could potentially backfire are based on how much it's worth it to them to do such.
Literally guy could have done all kinds of things to make this easier for him. Just not showing was quite possibly the dumbest way to do it.
LoL, no. Off to Gaol you GO!
Steve Bannon files appeal to Supreme Court in bid to stay out of jail
Seeing how he is not
- young
- attractive
- rich
I don’t see this working out as well as he hopes it will.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
107 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4183 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS