Lawyer explains why Bannon/Kolfage case will most likely get thrown out.

[BluesLegend]

Fascist?? Are you really that ******* stupid? Yeah you apparently are. Look fucknut you bring up Obama for Bannon’s crime?..what kind of knuckledragging stupidity is that.
By way you waste of human skin, your post reveals just how deprived and insane you are.

Riiiiight he's the crazy one. I knew this case stunk of partisan witch hunt from the get go.

 

[Lewdog]

LOL..Fat chance. You Trumpers just can't help but be taken in one way or another.

No one was "taken." That's one major problem with the case. They have no plaintiffs willing to testify against Kolfage and Bannon.

They don't need "plaintiffs willing to testify." First off it is an easy case to prosecute based solely on documents. Secondly, they can subpoena people to testify, they don't have to count on them being 'willing.'

Yes, they actually do. If no one is claiming they were damaged, then what is the lawsuit about? Every lawsuit needs a damaged party.

Try watching the video instead of pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

The fundraiser, said that NO ONE would be paid, and ALL money would go towards building the wall. They do not need ANY people who donated to be willing plaintiffs. Quit trying to be a lawyer, you are not one and do not understand law one iota.

 

[bripat9643]

Fascist?? Are you really that ******* stupid? Yeah you apparently are. Look fucknut you bring up Obama for Bannon’s crime?..what kind of knuckledragging stupidity is that.
By way you waste of human skin, your post reveals just how deprived and insane you are.

Riiiiight he's the crazy one. I knew this case stunk of partisan witch hunt from the get go.

The fact that they filed it 2 months before the elections wouldn't be a clue, would it? One thing this indictment is doing is keeping Bannon out of action.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL..Fat chance. You Trumpers just can't help but be taken in one way or another.

No one was "taken." That's one major problem with the case. They have no plaintiffs willing to testify against Kolfage and Bannon.

They don't need "plaintiffs willing to testify." First off it is an easy case to prosecute based solely on documents. Secondly, they can subpoena people to testify, they don't have to count on them being 'willing.'

Yes, they actually do. If no one is claiming they were damaged, then what is the lawsuit about? Every lawsuit needs a damaged party.

Try watching the video instead of pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

The fundraiser, said that NO ONE would be paid, and ALL money would go towards building the wall. They do not need ANY people who donated to be willing plaintiffs. Quit trying to be a lawyer, you are not one and do not understand law one iota.

I'm not trying to be a lawyer. I'm telling you what the lawyer in the video says. You might try watching it so you don't sound like such a ******* dumbass.

 

[Lewdog]

LOL..Fat chance. You Trumpers just can't help but be taken in one way or another.

No one was "taken." That's one major problem with the case. They have no plaintiffs willing to testify against Kolfage and Bannon.

They don't need "plaintiffs willing to testify." First off it is an easy case to prosecute based solely on documents. Secondly, they can subpoena people to testify, they don't have to count on them being 'willing.'

Yes, they actually do. If no one is claiming they were damaged, then what is the lawsuit about? Every lawsuit needs a damaged party.

Try watching the video instead of pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

The fundraiser, said that NO ONE would be paid, and ALL money would go towards building the wall. They do not need ANY people who donated to be willing plaintiffs. Quit trying to be a lawyer, you are not one and do not understand law one iota.

I'm not trying to be a lawyer. I'm telling you what the lawyer in the video says. You might try watching it so you don't sound like such a ******* dumbass.

And the lawyer in the film hasn't seen all the evidence and is wrong. You cannot be a non-profit fundraiser, list that ALL money will be going for the building of the wall, and then transfer money into your own accounts, it's fraud. It's tax evasion for not paying taxes on the money you stole, and it is wire fraud because some of the money was transferred digitally. They have documentation of it all. They don't need 'willing plaintiffs.' Just because a guy has the title of a lawyer doesn't mean he is right about everything. Some people make videos like his just to get people like you to click on it.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL..Fat chance. You Trumpers just can't help but be taken in one way or another.

No one was "taken." That's one major problem with the case. They have no plaintiffs willing to testify against Kolfage and Bannon.

They don't need "plaintiffs willing to testify." First off it is an easy case to prosecute based solely on documents. Secondly, they can subpoena people to testify, they don't have to count on them being 'willing.'

Yes, they actually do. If no one is claiming they were damaged, then what is the lawsuit about? Every lawsuit needs a damaged party.

Try watching the video instead of pretending you know what the **** you're talking about.

The fundraiser, said that NO ONE would be paid, and ALL money would go towards building the wall. They do not need ANY people who donated to be willing plaintiffs. Quit trying to be a lawyer, you are not one and do not understand law one iota.

I'm not trying to be a lawyer. I'm telling you what the lawyer in the video says. You might try watching it so you don't sound like such a ******* dumbass.

And the lawyer in the film hasn't seen all the evidence and is wrong. You cannot be a non-profit fundraiser, list that ALL money will be going for the building of the wall, and then transfer money into your own accounts, it's fraud. It's tax evasion for not paying taxes on the money you stole, and it is wire fraud because some of the money was transferred digitally. They have documentation of it all. They don't need 'willing plaintiffs.' Just because a guy has the title of a lawyer doesn't mean he is right about everything. Some people make videos like his just to get people like you to click on it.

You didn't watch the video, obviously. Get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.

 

[JLW]

I watched the first five minutes of that video then turned it off. I wasn‘t going to waste another fifty minutes or so of my time. When the attorney, I guess Barnes is his name, said the scheme that Bannon and Kofage dreamt up to divert donated funds was a “victimless” crime, I knew I was listening to an idiot. Apparently if you donate to a crowdfunding page that has potential political overtones you can’t be scammed.

I had enough of this stupidity so I turned it off just like a jury would turn off an idiotic argument like that.

 

[pknopp]

Some YouTube lawyer? LOL

They are real lawyers you idiot.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[JoeB131]

No one was "taken." That's one major problem with the case. They have no plaintiffs willing to testify against Kolfage and Bannon.

They don't need one, although I'm sure one will pop up.

The fact that they collected money to acheive a certain goal and spent it on themselves says it all.

 

[Norman]

Some YouTube lawyer? LOL

They are real lawyers you idiot.

Maybe, maybe not.

No maybe's about it.

 

[pknopp]

Some YouTube lawyer? LOL

They are real lawyers you idiot.

Maybe, maybe not.

No maybe's about it.

He's the guy that represented Alex Jones.

AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas judge ordered conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to pay $100,000 in another court setback over the Infowars host using his show to promote falsehoods that the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax.

Alex Jones to pay $100,000 in Sandy Hook case, judge rules