Steve Bannon Calls On '4,000 Shock Troops' To 'Deconstruct' The Government 'Brick By Brick'

[aubiefifty 18,248]

Fresh from a double contempt of Congress conviction linked to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, Steve Bannon is now calling on “4,000 shock troops” to “deconstruct” the federal government “brick by brick.”

He wants to see people “stepping forward, say[ing], ’Hey, I want to be one of those 4,000 shock troops,” Bannon said on his “War Room” podcast Monday. “This is taking on and defeating and deconstructing the administrative state,” he added.

“Shock troops” are assault forces that lead an attack.

“Suck on it,” said Bannon. “We’re destroying this illegitimate regime.”

Bannon’s incendiary comments evoked his ominous call the day before the U.S. Capitol riot, when he told supporters of then-President Donald Trump on his podcast: “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. We’re on ... the point of attack ... strap in.”

Bannon was responding to an Axios report last week that Trump and his allies are already plotting to replace all federal officials and civil service workers with those whose key qualification would be slavish devotion to Trump if he retakes the White House in the 2024 election.

Bannon hailed the radical plot for Trump to take control of the nation. Former Trump campaign adviser Steve Cortes vowed on the podcast that Trump’s “next” term would be “far more consequential” than his last one. Both men were clearly familiar with the game plan.

Bannon had also called for “shock troops” to “immediately” seize control of the nation a month before the 2020 election, when he expected Trump to win reelection — or seize control of the vote results. “Pre-trained teams” need to be “ready to jump into federal agencies,” Bannon told NBC News then.

Bloomberg opinion columnist Jonathan Bernstein wrote Monday that “contempt for the rule of law” appeared to be a key qualification for workers in Trump’s future world in office, to fulfill his aim to “blow up the Constitution.”

Bannon was convicted Friday of two counts of contempt of Congress for blowing off a subpoena to provide documents and be interviewed by members of the House select committee about his activities linked to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol — including plotting with Trump to overthrow presidential election results.

Bannon vowed to “go medieval” on his enemies when he was served with his subpoena last year and said he would make the charges against him the “misdemeanor from hell” for the Biden administration. Instead, he didn’t even take the stand in his defense. The jury determined he was guilty after deliberating less than three hours.

 

why is this man not in jail?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Brown Shirts.  Sometimes you need to accelerate the violence.

[Leftfield 3,376]

Many times people use hyperbole or are vague so as to avoid consequences for what they're saying. This really seems to be well over that line to me. I don't see how this can't be considered a clear and direct call for violence. He needs to go away for a while.

[creed 1,790]

This dude needs to shut his pie hole and disappear. A place with bars and zero media access. 

[jj3jordan 2,171]

Nobody listens to a guy with hair like that.

[homersapien 12,238]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Related-rights

Permissible restrictions on expression

First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, if the restrictions are unrelated to what the speech says and leave people with enough alternative ways of expressing their views. Thus, for instance, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit all demonstrations that block traffic, or ban all picketing of people’s homes.

Second, a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.

 

Clearly, it's incitement.  The question is whether or not action is being urged at some unspecified time.  Would inauguration day, 2025 qualify as a specific time?

 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nobody listens to a guy with hair like that.

Yeah.  You hold a CPAC conference and invite Orban to be the speaker.

 

[aubiefifty 18,248]

On 7/26/2022 at 10:27 AM, jj3jordan said:

Nobody listens to a guy with hair like that.

jj you have been nice to me lately and i almost did not post this but you do remember who you voted for right? grins

[jj3jordan 2,171]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Yeah.  You hold a CPAC conference and invite Orban to be the speaker.

 

Hey his haircut is popular in Hungary.

[jj3jordan 2,171]

59 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

jj you have been nice to me lately and i almost did not post this but you do remember who you voted for right? grins

Bannon is way worse than the golden combover. You gotta admit it is a fine shock of hair.

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

Between Bannon, Trump, and Rand Paul someone needs to get a barber and stylist into the GOP HQ stat.