Steve Bannon faces state indictment in N.Y., will surrender Thursday

2,982 Views | 36 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by TWD 1974
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Bannon faces state indictment in N.Y., will surrender Thursday

NEW YORK Stephen K. Bannon is expected to surrender to state prosecutors on Thursday to face a new criminal indictment, people familiar with the matter said.
The precise details of the state case could not be confirmed Tuesday evening. But people familiar with the situation, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sealed indictment, suggested the prosecution will likely mirror aspects of the federal case in which Bannon was pardoned.
In that indictment, prosecutors alleged that Bannon and several others defrauded contributors to a private, $25 million fundraising effort, called "We Build the Wall," taking funds that donors were told would support construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which handles state-level prosecutions, has been evaluating Bannon's alleged involvement in that scheme since shortly after Trump pardoned him, The Washington Post reported in February, 2021.
Presidential pardons only apply to federal charges and cannot prohibit state prosecutions.
Bannon, a former top strategist for Trump who was briefly a White House aide, pleaded not guilty to the federal charges in August 2020. He was accused of pocketing $1 million in the scheme.
Two other men, including disabled veteran Brian Kol***e, pleaded guilty in federal court in connection with the fundraising scheme. A trial involving a third alleged participant, Timothy Shea, ended in a mistrial in June when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
When reached for comment, Bannon issued a statement through his spokesperson that described the indictment as "phony charges" and "nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/bannon-border-wall-indictment/
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


I agree
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


Clinton Foundation admin costs, anyone?

The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who knows. Hopefully a serious case and not just for political show. Obviously the guy is an evil character out of a comic book, but making money off people's stupidity isn't against the law, as far as I know.
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
how and why are the Clintons invincible?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Well, you see, courts usually require this thing called "evidence," and yahoos bloviating on the internet doesn't quite work. In court that is. Works great here though.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
TenBears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's probably still time for some of you to hand him your money to get your personalized brick in the wall. Better get on it!
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TenBears said:

There's probably still time for some of you to hand him your money to get your personalized brick in the wall. Better get on it!
Give until it hurts!
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TenBears said:

There's probably still time for some of you to hand him your money to get your personalized brick in the wall. Better get on it!
i wasnt going to but you talked me into it!

Nobody is supporting him, it was just pointed out that it may not have been illegal to be an ahole..
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Well, you see, courts usually require this thing called "evidence," and yahoos bloviating on the internet doesn't quite work. In court that is. Works great here though.
Sir, is it your opinion then that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate non profit ?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

fubar said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Well, you see, courts usually require this thing called "evidence," and yahoos bloviating on the internet doesn't quite work. In court that is. Works great here though.
Sir, is it your opinion then that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate non profit ?
I don't have an opinion on that.

I do have an opinion on the necessity of admissible evidence if you wish to prove something. The fact that no court has done anything you guys want (regarding the Clintons) isn't evidence that courts are politically biased. It's evidence that you don't actually have the evidence that you think you do.

"Lock her up!" is a nice, if inane, political chant. But that's all it is.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


I agree
In this case against Bannon, I think the yacht was a bit hard to justify in building a border wall.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar said:

Canada2017 said:

fubar said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Well, you see, courts usually require this thing called "evidence," and yahoos bloviating on the internet doesn't quite work. In court that is. Works great here though.
Sir, is it your opinion then that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate non profit ?
I don't have an opinion on that.

I do have an opinion on the necessity of admissible evidence if you wish to prove something. The fact that no court has done anything you guys want (regarding the Clintons) isn't evidence that courts are politically biased. It's evidence that you don't actually have the evidence that you think you do.

"Lock her up!" is a nice, if inane, political chant. But that's all it is.
Like myself....you have opinions on many subjects .

Seems rather convenient to not have an opinion on the Clinton Foundation .

Especially since its rather obvious.......

A. Foreign contributions dramatically dried up once Hillary failed to become POTUS.
B. Such an incredibly high percentage of all donations went to 'overhead'.

As far as the Federal Courts being politically biased......well of course they are . In both directions .
Which is one of the biggest reasons elections matter. Those in power appoint judges who they believe will further the administration's agenda .

I apologize if I have given the impression that evidence isn't mandatory ....as it certainly should be .
However it should also be plain to anyone that this current administration practices 'selective prosecution '.

And that is far more dangerous to our personal freedoms than any internet rant .
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Probably because they know enough to stay within the law. Based on the indictment, it appears Bannon didn't.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Probably because they know enough to stay within the law. Based on the indictment, it appears Bannon didn't.


4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xxx yyy said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


I agree
In this case against Bannon, I think the yacht was a bit hard to justify in building a border wall.
if it owned by the build a wall company then no..

If owned by bannon then yes
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

xxx yyy said:

Osodecentx said:

4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


I agree
In this case against Bannon, I think the yacht was a bit hard to justify in building a border wall.
if it owned by the build a wall company then no..

If owned by bannon then yes


Was given an impromptu tour of a section of the Border Wall built by this non profit by an old friend who was the ag teacher at Coronado High School in El Paso .

The area in question had been ignored by the feds because they had decided the hills at this point of the border were far too steep for illegals to cross .

Well, according to the locals there were hundreds of illegals trespassing on their property every week .

So they contacted the non profit who agreed to take on the project.

The work I saw was amazing . Despite the steep incline the wall built looked far stronger with more flood lighting than the federal work 2 miles away .

In a addition the non profit built a beautiful paved ROAD along the entire length of their section .

Superior work, along the most difficult incline I have ever seen along the US Mexican border .
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Probably because they know enough to stay within the law. Based on the indictment, it appears Bannon didn't.
Trump never has.

His superpower appears to be either hiring enough lawyers to make it too costly and painful (or embarrassing?) for busines partners he defrauded to hold him accountable, or--and this is where being president really helped him--making sure his cases were heard by judges he knew, for whatever reason, would issue favorable rulings to him.

I'm waiting to see if Bannon possesses the same superpower. And hope Bannon's arrogance gave him a false sense of invinceability. "All the best people" indeed.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Probably because they know enough to stay within the law. Based on the indictment, it appears Bannon didn't.
Say what you will about them (I never could stand either of them), Bill and Hilary were extremely bright lawyers, who's brilliance was manifested largely in their ability to constantly walk a political minefield just on the legal side throughout a long political career. Trump also seems to enjoy walking the line, a place he could do when he had Roy Cohn to guide him. Lately it appears he has been walking the minefield blindfolded. Bannon is an even bigger fool, who may be finding out a little late in life that he is not nearly as smart as he thought he was.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xxx yyy said:

Sam Lowry said:

BornAgain said:

how and why are the Clintons invincible?
Probably because they know enough to stay within the law. Based on the indictment, it appears Bannon didn't.
Say what you will about them (I never could stand either of them), Bill and Hilary were extremely bright lawyers, who's brilliance was manifested largely in their ability to constantly walk a political minefield just on the legal side throughout a long political career. Trump also seems to enjoy walking the line, a place he could do when he had Roy Cohn to guide him. Lately it appears he has been walking the minefield blindfolded. Bannon is an even bigger fool, who may be finding out a little late in life that he is not nearly as smart as he thought he was.
Yep. It should have been an easy charge to avoid. All he had to do was pay his CEO and skip the virtue signaling. Instead he lied and laundered money to cover it up. "Whattabout the Clintons" falls flat as a defense when you've been telling everyone you're nothing like the Clintons.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bannon goes to prison while Denchenko who was clearly guilty, walks free.

Fu ck DC.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.


Clinton Foundation admin costs, anyone?

The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
You are quoting an article from 2015 that was debunked in 2015. Clinton Foundation does not for the most part take money and then writes a check to another organization that does the work. Its development of its own programs, such as in its work to eliminate tropical diseases such as malaria, etc. is where the bulk of the spending is allocated. From another old articlewww.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/;
CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its (Clinton Foundation) budget is spent on programs. That's the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

We looked at the consolidated financial statements and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


The currency of your incorrect link doesn't make it correct. Also, it's (current year) is not an argument. Happy to help.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Pocketing.. interesting term. Not saying they didnt do something wrong but you are allowed to have administrative costs and payroll even as a non profit.

Many non profits actually use less than 25% of intake for actual support of the cause..

One reason we typically dont give to non profits unless they are well vetted.
How do you define "fraud" and "conspiracy"? That's what he's charged with.

He's pled not guilty: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/nyregion/bannon-indictment-new-york.html

The "We Build the Wall" founders already pleaded guilty.

The fraud resulted in part from the fact that they told donors they weren't taking salaries + 100% of their donations would go toward building the wall. We Build the Wall raised $25 million from donors and only $6 million went to built a section of wall.

https://abq.news/2022/04/founders-of-we-build-the-wall-gofundme-plead-guilty-to-fundraising-fraud/

The co-founder of the "We Build The Wall" project aimed at raising money for a border wall pleaded guilty last Thursday to charges in a case that once included former President Donald Trump's adviser Steve Bannon.
The group built a $6 million section of the wall close to the border by Mount Cristo Rey in Sunland Park, New Mexico.

The indictment, filed in August 2020, alleges that Brian Kol***e "falsely assured the public" that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that 100 percent of all donated funds would go to building the wall. "We Build the Wall" raised more than $25 million from thousands of donors.

Kol***e admitted to pocketing hundreds of thousands of dollars while promising all donations would pay for the wall. To induce donors to donate to the campaign, Kol***e repeatedly and falsely assured the public that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that "100% of the funds raised . . . will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose."

His plea came a month before a trial in a case that began in dramatic fashion in August 2020, when Bannon was pulled from a luxury yacht off the coast of Connecticut and arrested on allegations that he and three others ripped off donors trying to fund a southern border wall.

Bannon was pardoned by Trump just before he left office last year. Bannon had pleaded not guilty to charges he pocketed over $1 million, using some of the money to secretly pay Kol***e, a 39-year-old Air Force veteran who lost both legs in a mortar attack in Iraq.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont care what he is charged with.. if he did it, put him in jail.

You get worked up over stuff that isnt that important. Making money isnt illegal. Clinton foundation is prime example. Clintons made millions legally but not necessarily ethically according to some..

If it was legal then its legal. If it wasnt, then its not and he should go to jail.

Its not that hard. Feels have nothing to do with it.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wait'll the shoe is on the other foot.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Wait'll the shoe is on the other foot.
We know the answer ... his name is Hunter Biden.

Don't really care about Bannon, but agreed ... if he broke the law, punish him.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


30 years?
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


30 years?
You're right, it goes back further than that. I have lived and worked in the NY area for close to 40, and for most of that time, NYP was something you read for the Sports, never journalism.
Golem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xxx yyy said:

Fre3dombear said:

xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


30 years?
You're right, it goes back further than that. I have lived and worked in the NY area for close to 40, and for most of that time, NYP was something you read for the Sports, never journalism.


Surprising then they were the only actual journalists who published the story on Hunter Biden's laptop and were subsequently shut down on Twitter for the crime of engaging in actual journalism while the gray lady was gargling democrat testicles.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

xxx yyy said:

Fre3dombear said:

xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


30 years?
You're right, it goes back further than that. I have lived and worked in the NY area for close to 40, and for most of that time, NYP was something you read for the Sports, never journalism.


Surprising then they were the only actual journalists who published the story on Hunter Biden's laptop and were subsequently shut down on Twitter for the crime of engaging in actual journalism while the gray lady was gargling democrat testicles.


Standard amazing how uneducated they can keep
Some People for generations.
TWD 1974
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golem said:

xxx yyy said:

Fre3dombear said:

xxx yyy said:

Golem said:

Lol! Debunked doesn't mean what you think/wish it means.
I'm not the one quoting a 7year old NYP article, that, like much of the NYP reporting for past 30 years, is less that factual, lofl


30 years?
You're right, it goes back further than that. I have lived and worked in the NY area for close to 40, and for most of that time, NYP was something you read for the Sports, never journalism.


Surprising then they were the only actual journalists who published the story on Hunter Biden's laptop and were subsequently shut down on Twitter for the crime of engaging in actual journalism while the gray lady was gargling democrat testicles.
You can credit NYP for breaking the story all you want. But in the process of Giuliani and the Post delivering that scintillating story break, they also managed to break irrevocably a legal case based on the laptop. They broke chain of custody of the laptop, and subsequent examination determined that the laptop had been altered by persons not identified--thereby making it inadmissible in a court of law. Not what I call Pulitzer worthy, in my quite humble opinion.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.