Still in the game: Will Durham's report throw a slow curveball at key political players? | TheHill

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  112 comments

By:   Jonathan Turley (TheHill)

Still in the game: Will Durham's report throw a slow curveball at key political players? | TheHill
Durham is reportedly presenting evidence against FBI agents and possibly others in the use of false information at the start of the Russia probe.

Nothing comes from nothing and nothing is all that John Durham has. He is now pitching wild unfounded untrue accusations to a grand jury claiming solid lifelong loyal employees of the FBI lied to the FBI at the beginning of the FBI's Russia probe. Basically, he is accusing them of doing their jobs because if they had not done what they did it would have been professional malfeasance. Do not expect anything to come of it except that innocent people's careers and reputations will be ruined, andrew McCabe, in the name of far rightwing conspiracy theories and Donald Trump. History will say Durham was a low down bum who was guilty of the exact kind of inappropriate political motivations that he and Trump falsely accused many other goid decent honest hard working government employees of being guilty of.

After all, in the end analysis, Andrew McCabe will be completely vindicated because he was not lying.

Trump lied. He was negotiating with the Russians to build a Trump Tower in Moscow all the way up to election day 2016. So, why isn't Trump in prison?


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Tweet Share More

Texas Rangers infielder Brock Holt went to the mound this week and threw an eephus — a high-arching, off-speed pitch — in a game against the Oakland Athletics. It is believed to be the slowest pitch recorded in MLB history, and A's batter Josh Harrison stood in disbelief as the 31 mph pitch was called a strike. Harrison just laughed in amazement.

Pirates outfielder Maurice Van Robays coined the term in the 1946 All-Star Game, explaining, "Eephus ain't nothing, and that's a nothing pitch." But as Holt demonstrated, sometimes a "nothing" slow pitch can amount to a great deal.

That is equally true about the occasional criminal eephus that takes everyone by surprise. For example, U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation has been slow in coming, but on Friday, a report surfaced that he is pitching evidence to a grand jury in an investigation started back in May 2019. The Durham investigation is now longer in duration than former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, and many people long forgot that Durham — made a special counsel at the end of the Trump administration — was even still in the game.

The report in The Wall Street Journal said Durham is presenting evidence against FBI agents and possibly others in the use of false information or tips at the start of the Russia investigation in 2016. Those "others" could include a virtual who's who of Washington politics, and even if they are not indicted, Durham could implicate some of the most powerful figures in politics in his final report, expected in the coming months.

Even for those of us who followed and wrote on the Russia investigation for five years, much has been revealed in the last year. It was disclosed in October, for instance, that President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaFormer Sen. Heller to run for Nevada governorOvernight Energy & Environment — Presented by Climate Power — Senate Democrats ding Biden energy proposalBusiness coalition aims to provide jobs to Afghan refugeesMORE was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan, on July 28, 2016, on intelligence suggesting that Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonPennsylvania GOP authorizes subpoenas in election probeWe must mount an all-country response to help our Afghan alliesBiden nominates ex-State Department official as Export-Import Bank leaderMORE planned to tie then-candidate Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFormer Sen. Heller to run for Nevada governorOvernight Defense & National Security — Milley becomes lightning rodJoint Chiefs Chairman Milley becomes lightning rod on rightMORE to Russia as "a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server." The date was significant because the Russia investigation was initiated July 31, 2016, just three days later.

Throughout the campaign, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the so-called Steele dossier's allegations of Trump-Russia connections. However, weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the dossier made to a research firm, Fusion GPS, as "legal fees" among the $5.6 million paid to the campaign's law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias, with the law firm of Perkins Coie, denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias "pushed back vigorously, saying 'You (or your sources) are wrong.'" Times reporter Maggie HabermanMaggie Lindsy HabermanJuan Williams: Trump's coup attempt should bar him from 2024 raceStill in the game: Will Durham's report throw a slow curveball at key political players?The Hill's 12:30 Report - Presented by Facebook - Officers give grueling, horrific accounts of Jan. 6MORE declared, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year."

It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

It was later revealed that American intelligence viewed Steele as unreliable and believed his dossier was used by Russian intelligence to plant disinformation. Later reports show that Steele shopped the information to any reporters who would listen before the election and that there was an effort to get the information to trusted figures in the Justice Department.

This cross-pollination between the campaign and the Justice Department was evident in the strange role of Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice official who was later demoted for concealing his meetings with people pushing the Steele dossier; his wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS as a researcher on Trump's purported connections to Russia. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz subsequently found that Bruce Ohr acted improperly and committed "consequential errors in judgment."

Others are reported in some media accounts to be in Durham's crosshairs, including an analyst at the liberal Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, who was a source for part of the dossier and the subject of a Durham subpoena. Danchenko has been linked to a source viewed by American intelligence as a conduit for Russian disinformation and reportedly was investigated as a possible national security threat, according to at least one news report.

Durham also is reportedly looking into information concerning Alfa Bank, a privately owned commercial bank in Russia. That information led to possible access to the Trump campaign server. The Alfa Bank controversy is likely to make a number of powerful people particularly uneasy. Clinton campaign-linked figures such as Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson allegedly pushed the debunked claim that the Trump campaign had a server linked directly to the bank, which in turn was linked to Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by National Industries for the Blind - Schumer: Dem unity will happen eventually; Newsom prevailsOvernight Hillicon Valley — Ex-US intel operatives pay to settle hacking chargesGeneral promises 'surge' to fight ransomware attacksMORE and his cronies. The Alfa Bank conspiracy reportedly was pitched to the Justice Department, including in contacts with Bruce Ohr.

For many individuals, the statute of limitations may have passed on any alleged crimes. But the truth brought to light in any final report could result a public indictment of sorts.

Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandWoman allegedly abused by Nassar after he was reported to FBI: 'I should not be here'Democrat rips Justice for not appearing at US gymnastics hearingDOJ asks judge to block Texas from enacting abortion lawMORE may face some pressure to refuse to reauthorize a continuation of the Durham investigation, but he is likely to continue that support. After all, the Mueller investigation and various damaging investigations targeting Trump officials were approved and protected by his predecessor, William BarrBill BarrMilley moved to limit Trump military strike abilities after Jan. 6, Woodward book claims: reportFormer US attorney enters race for governor in PennsylvaniaFamilies of 9/11 victims hope for answers about Saudi involvement in attacksMORE.

The final fight may be over the report itself. Many in Congress and the media may not want it to see the light of day since it is likely to be an indictment not just of the FBI but of the establishment and an enabling media. Yet these same figures demanded "full transparency" over the Mueller report, including secret grand jury material barred from release under federal law. Even in a city that lives on political spin, reversing that narrative to demand secrecy or major redactions may be difficult to achieve in front of an increasingly distrustful public.

Thus, John Durham may be the slowest pitcher of all major league federal prosecutors — but a wide array of powerful people are afraid they may be called out at the plate by what he is about to let fly.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

Turley is a turd head and completely wrong, again.

Well, he's right about one thing. Durham has zippo.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2  Ronin2    one month ago
Trump lied. He was negotiating with the Russians to build a Trump Tower in Moscow all the way up to election day 2016. So, why isn't Trump in prison?

Peddling this BS still? If the Democrats had anything on Trump they would have used it long ago. They are on one long never ending fishing trip into everything Trump. Maybe next time they will finally get him; or the time after that; or if not then surely the next time; and on, and on, and on, and on.

The Democrats need Trump as a buffer to the fuck up machine that currently sits in the White House. W/O Trump their media lemmings would have to spend more time concentrating on Sleepy Joe Biden; and the administration will have to tell the truth about their vast number of failures.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @2    one month ago

Democrats impeached Trump for it. A majority of both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate voted to convict him. That is historic fact.

Trump was found guilty. He just was not removed...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @2.1    one month ago

We're still waiting on all those Durham indictments of the Obama administration!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.1    one month ago

Durham is a joke. He was Trump flunky. Now he is making a huge fool of himself. He has zippo!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1    one month ago
Democrats impeached Trump for it.

No they didn't. Quit making things up. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.3    one month ago

Trump is the only President impeached twice!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.4    one month ago

ump is the only President impeached twice!

Are you spewing random words now? That doesn't address your previous false claim. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.5    one month ago

What did I claim that was false? That Trump was impeached? He was impeached, twice.

Once for Russia and once for January 6th...

He wasn't removed, but he was impeached.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.3    one month ago

Yes they did.  Quit making things up.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    one month ago

 That Trump was impeached? He was impeached, twice.

You claimed Trump was impeached for negotiating with the Russians to build a Trump Tower in Moscow all the way up to election day 2016.

He wasn't. That's 100% false.  Just look at the actual impeachment charges. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @2.1    one month ago

The SENATE DID NOT approve impeaching Trump IN EITHER TRIAL.  They failed to have the 60 REQUIRED votes in the second trial/hearing/faux case.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  JBB  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.9    one month ago

Yet, a bipartisan majority voted to convict...

Outdated Senate rules kept him in his office.

He was impeached & wasn't found innocent.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one month ago
Outdated Senate rules kept him in his office.

So now you want to complain about the rules?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, why didn't they just change the rules like they did for other things when Democrats didn't get their way?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.10    one month ago
Outdated Senate rules kept him in his office.

The Constitution is not  an "outdated Senate Rule"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    one month ago
Once for Russia

Did you watch the impeachment trial? Did you read the articles of impeachment?

Where do you GET this stuff from???????

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.14  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    one month ago

Yes, a bipartisan majority found Trump guilty! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.14    one month ago

Looks like we have lots of work to do here.

Okay, let's begin.

First off, elections for Congress do not, have not, and will not include national totals for all the positions. That is simply stupid.

Second, Presidents are not elected by popular vote, which means who wins the popular vote is meaningless.

Third, impeachment trials are different than removing a President from office, as Democrats were hellbent bound to try with Trump. They failed to remove him---twice. When one learns what the requirement for removal is, then all this silly irrelevant talk about him being "convicted" in the Senate will become as meaningless to you as it is to America.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    one month ago

People don't seem to understand how the impeachment process works. And I get soooooooooo tired of explaining it. I know you know how it works.

For the impeachment impaired here it is again:

An impeachment is sought in the House. The House acts as the Grand Jury and brings an indictment.

The Senate then acts as the judge and jury, sifts through the evidence, and determine if there is any there there. If there is, the POTUS is FOUND GUILTY! The Senate determines what course of action needs to be taken. The POTUS can be removed from office, censored, or left alone.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 94(?) and then tried in the Senate. He was found guilty and was censored which consisted of a strongly worded letter. I think he also lost his law license.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.9    one month ago

No....they found him not guilty which is not the same. The Senate does not impeach. Their job is to hold the trial. Only the House can impeach

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.9    one month ago

Please read your own link more carefully:

On February 13, 2021, former President Donald Trump (R) was acquitted of incitement of insurrection. Fifty-seven senators voted to convict and 43 voted to acquit. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. [1] On January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump by a vote of 232-197 for incitement of insurrection . The resolution followed the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol , which disrupted a joint session of Congress convened to count the electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election . Ten Republicans supported the impeachment. [2] [3]
 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    one month ago
jbb wrote: "He wasn't removed, but he was impeached."
You can impeach a ham sandwich, but if there is no vote to convict, it's a pointless exercise/
Twice.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.16    one month ago

Correction.

Clinton was impeached after he was re-elected which was definitely not 1994

I could look it up but I don't feel like it

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @2    one month ago

No, if Durham really had anything, anything at all, on Obama or on anyone in his administration he would have pulled the trigger on it while Trump was still in office and it might have helped his reelection effort.

He didn't because he had nothing even on McCabe.

No grand jury will indict agents for doing their jobs...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @2    one month ago

Was Trump still negotiating with Russian to build Trump Tower Moscow right up until the election?

According to the Mueller Report he was and he lied.

Do you think an FBI agent seeing it should not have?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.3    one month ago
o you think an FBI agent seeing it should not have?

When did Trump lie under oath about this ? You do  understand that's when the FBI would get involved, right? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.1    one month ago

Trump lied to everyone who asked! He lied to reporters and to the American people. Don't you think we had a right to know? Do you really believe Trump negotiating with Russia to make a huge personal financial gain while running for President and lying to us about it was okay?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.3.2    one month ago

Great, we both agree the argument that Trump should have been arrested for lying about a Trump Tower deal has no basis in reality. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.3    one month ago

Agreeing Trump was colluding with Russia during the 2016 Presidential race is a start...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.1    one month ago

So lying to the American people is ok ( he lied throughout the '16 campaign about having no business dealings with Russia) as long as he didnt lie to the FBI? That is an odd take. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.3.6  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.3.2    one month ago

If they indicted every politician that lied to the media and the public there wouldn't be enough prison cells to hold them all. 

Trump never lied under oath period; and what he did with Russia was not a crime. Otherwise the Clinton Foundation money laundering scheme would have put them in prison a long time ago. But the Clintons never lied under oath about it. The Clinton Foundation was taking money in from rich Saudis and Russian oligarchs all the way up until she officially lost. Then the Foundation had to suddenly close because their large donor funding dried up. No play, no pay.

But I guess Trump lying about negotiating a business deal with Russia is bad; but the Clintons lying about laundering money in a pay for play scheme is good.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.7  seeder  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.5    one month ago

Didn't Don Jr lie to Congress about being in negotiations with Russia to build Trump Tower Moscow during the campaign? I distinctly remember Don Jr lying to a Congressional committee about it. He may have finagled not being under oath. Still, we know now Trump was negotiating with the Russian government to get a sweetheart deal to build Trump Tower Moscow during the 2916 presidential campaign and he and his organization including his family lied about it.

That is enough to charge them all still today!

Durham is just trying to protect Trump & Co.

The FBI agent who saw all this going on were doing the right thing to investigate Trump...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.8  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.6    one month ago

You are purposefully missing the point. John Durham is still smearing FBI agents for doing their jobs. Trump was colluding with Russia!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.3.9  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago

Did you read the damn Mueller report? Trump didn't collude with Russia, period. 

What Mueller and his crew of Clinton and Obama sycophants tried to pin Trump with was obstruction. Trump didn't like being investigated and constantly asked his lawyers and cabinet what he could do to end the investigation. Notice: He did not end it; and he didn't impede it; because his lawyers and cabinet told him he couldn't. Trump was throw shit at the wall and seeing what would stick. Nothing stuck. They wanted to hit him with obstruction for ending an investigation based on a political hit job. Mueller had his big show testimony in front of Congress and fell flat on his face. He had to walk back any comment on charging Trump he made. 

Mueller made the big claim that Trump could be charged once out of office; but no charges ever came forth. Why, because the Democrats and DOJ don't want a show trial where the entire Mueller investigation is broken apart into the partisan hit job it was.  They don't want the FISA warrants brought up and the what criteria was used to obtain them; especially when they admitted the Steele report was used. They don't want to give Trump the platform to put the system on trial with him and sow even more distrust in the federal government than there already is.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.3.10  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.3.8    one month ago

You purposely are being dumb. Trump didn't collude with Russia, read the damn Mueller report!

The inspector general report on the FISA warrants used to obtain the wire taps on Trump was damning. 

The report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz severely undercuts that assertion, at least when it comes to the FBI's applications for surveillance of Carter Page , a Trump foreign policy adviser who was never charged with a crime.

The report found an FBI process so badly managed , so rife with errors, that the bureau's director immediately issued a statement saying he was already implementing reforms.

Some FBI personnel "did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI," Director Christopher Wray said in a statement. "We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI's duty to the American people."

Attorney General William Barr also criticized the FBI, accusing the bureau of "gross abuses" and "intrusive techniques" in an interview with NBC News on Tuesday in which he also suggested the FBI may have investigated the Trump campaign in "bad faith."

Because the criticism of the FBI was politically beneficial to Trump, Democrats who are normally quick to seize on abuses of national security power were notably muted. One group that was not was the nonpartisan American Civil Liberties Union, whose national security director, Hina Shamsi, expressed alarm.

"When the Justice Department's Inspector General finds significant concerns regarding flawed surveillance applications concerning the president's campaign advisers, it is clear that this regime lacks basic safeguards and is in need of serious reform," she said in a statement. "While the report found that there wasn't an improper purpose or initiation of the investigation, it also found significant problems that are alarming from a civil liberties perspective."

The flawed process outlined in the report, she said, "demonstrates how the secrecy shrouding the government's one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse. The concerns the inspector general identifies apply to intrusive investigations of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are necessary."

"The system requires fundamental reforms, and Congress can start by providing defendants subjected to FISA surveillance the opportunity to review the government's secret submissions," she added. "The FBI must also adopt higher standards for investigations involving constitutionally protected sensitive activities, such as political campaigns."

The IG report found 17 significant errors or omissions in four applications for surveillance on Page, which, in the end, was portrayed as yielding little relevant information.

"We concluded that the failures… represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications," the report says. "These failures prevented (the Justice Department) from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case."

In the most serious case, a low-level FBI lawyer altered an email to make it seem as if Page was not a CIA source, when in fact he was — something he confirmed to NBC News in an email Monday. That key fact might have cast his contacts with Russians in a different light, the IG found.

The IG report said the FBI relied heavily on a dossier compiled as part of a Democratic-funded opposition research campaign by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, while failing to inform the court that questions had arisen about Steele's credibility.

For example, an FBI source validation review found that Steele, who had worked with the bureau in the past, provided information that was only "minimally corroborated." But the FBI didn't tell that to the FISA court, the report says.

The FBI interviewed one of the sources who made claims about Page in the Steele dossier. The source contradicted some of what Steele had written, but the FBI didn't tell that to the court.

That same source said Steele overstated the level of certainty around the notorious story about Trump's supposed sexual dalliance at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow. The source called it unconfirmed rumor and speculation.

The report said responsibility for the failures extends high up the FBI's management chain.

"That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, handpicked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within the FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision of the FISA process."

Wray said some FBI employees could be disciplined. He said the bureau is "making concrete changes to ensure that our FISA protocols, verifications, layers of review, record-keeping requirements, and audits are more stringent and less susceptible to mistake or inaccuracy," adding, "These new processes will also ensure that the FISA Court and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are apprised of all information in the FBI's holdings relevant to a determination of probable cause."

Wray is also changing the rules on who has to approve sensitive investigations, such as those into political campaigns, he said, and on how the bureau handles confidential sources.

The FBI director for much of the period in question, James Comey, focused his public comments mainly on the IG's debunking of Trump conspiracy theories, some of which were aimed at him.

He said little about what the IG portrayed as a significant failure on his watch.

"The report found lots of mistakes — that's really significant and really unfortunate," Comey said on MSNBC. "But that's why you do IG reports."

That is from the inspector from the FBI; who went damn easy on the FBI. Durham is investigating the individual abuses to see if they rise to the level of a crime. It is illegal to spy on a political opponent; you know that right? The FBI had failures on every level for the spying to occur. They didn't meet their own protocols and altered evidence to make sure the FISA warrants stayed in place.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.9    one month ago

apnews.com   /article/north-america-donald-trump-ap-top-news-politics-russia-173eed4c59dd48a78cfc4376255461d1

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Putin and the no-collusion chorus

By CALVIN WOODWARD and HOPE YEN 8-10 minutes   4/20/2021


WASHINGTON (AP) — The “no-collusion” chorus sang loudly this past week, with President Donald Trump in full-throated roar and even Russian President Vladimir Putin chiming in.

The upshot: substantial misrepresentations of what the special counsel’s Russia investigation actually found.

A review of recent rhetoric from Trump and his associates on Russia and more, with Putin in the mix:

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

PUTIN on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: “A mountain gave birth to a mouse.” — remarks Tuesday, echoed in a phone call with Trump on Friday.

THE FACTS: Some might say this is a mouse that roared.

The investigation produced charges against nearly three dozen people, among them senior Trump campaign operatives and 25 Russians, as it shed light on a brazen Russian assault on the American political system.

The investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia and it reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Yet it described his campaign as eager to exploit the release of hacked Democratic emails to hurt rival Hillary Clinton and it exposed lies by Trump aides aimed at covering up their Russia-related contacts.

The Russians caught up in the investigation were charged either with hacking into Democratic accounts or orchestrating a social media campaign to spread disinformation on the internet.

___

TRUMP: “The Mueller Report strongly stated that there was No Collusion with Russia (of course) and, in fact, they were rebuffed ... at every turn in attempts to gain access.” — tweets Thursday.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: “The evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians and accused of being treasonous. ... Two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false.” — Senate hearing Wednesday.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Mr. Mueller and his team concluded there was no collusion.” — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong.

Trump’s assertion that his campaign denied all access to Russians is false. The Mueller report and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Clinton.

On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.

He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.

Mueller noted some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

___

BARR, speaking of Trump: “He fully cooperated.” — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: It’s highly questionable to say Trump was fully cooperative in the Russia investigation.

Trump declined to sit for an interview with Mueller’s team, gave written answers that investigators described as “inadequate” and “incomplete,” said more than 30 times that he could not remember something he was asked about in writing, and — according to the report — tried to get aides to fire Mueller or otherwise shut or limit the inquiry.

In the end, the Mueller report found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia but left open the question of whether Trump obstructed justice.

___

GRAHAM: “As to obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller left it to Mr. Barr to decide after two years, and all this time. He said, ‘Mr. Barr, you decide.’ Mr. Barr did.” — Senate hearing.

THE FACTS: Not true. Mueller did not ask Barr to rule on whether Trump’s efforts to undermine the special counsel’s Russia investigation had obstructed justice.

According to the report, Mueller’s team declined to make a prosecutorial judgment on whether to charge partly because of a Justice Department legal opinion that said sitting presidents shouldn’t be indicted.

As a result, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, specifically leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

Barr wrote in a March 24 letter that he ultimately decided, as attorney general, that the evidence developed by Mueller was “not sufficient” to establish, for the purposes of prosecution, that Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Barr subsequently acknowledged that he had not talked directly to Mueller about making that ruling and did not know whether Mueller agreed with him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.8    one month ago
Trump was colluding with Russia!

That crap has been circulated by unhinged progressive liberals for years now.

Funny thing is, despite millions spent on it, Mueller couldn't ever prove it, and certainly no dumbfuck Democrat in Congress has either.

That is called a major FAIL and you should really stop spreading that particular falsehood.

Either that, or simply PROVE IT instead of just bleating about it on and on and on.

Hasn't 5 years of this nonsense been enough for you yet?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.13  seeder  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.5    one month ago

Some fellas think that Trump getting way with ruining people's lives and careers is okay...

Trump lying to the American people is okay!

That a secret deal with an enemy was okay!

That Trump getting by with treason is okay!

As long as there is a legal technicality for it.

Again, why aren't Trump & Co in jail already?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago
Agreeing Trump was colluding with Russia during the 2016 Presidential race is a start...

PROVING it WOULD have been a start.

When have you or anyone else ever done so?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.13    one month ago
Again, why aren't Trump & Co in jail already?

Because Democrats can't prove what they allege?????????

Because we still have a justice system that require proof--not just some TALK?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.16  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.12    one month ago

The topic is Durham's sham FBI investigation.

Trump was colluding with the Russians during the 2016 US Presidential election and lying about it. The FBI was just doing their jobs...

Should our government's intelligence services have picked up on Trump and Co colluding with the Russians, or not? More importantly, should Trump and Durham get away with the bullshit lie that the Russia Probe was a hoax?

So far Durham hasn't gotten one GJ to agree.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.16    one month ago
he topic is Durham's sham FBI investigation.

So you don't think he conducted an investigation?

Trump was colluding with the Russians during the 2016 US Presidential election and lying about it. The FBI was just doing their jobs..

When the day comes that you can prove it, hell will freeze over. Shall I wait for that proof, or will it be like ALL the other times it has been asked for and not received?

Should our government's intelligence services have picked up on Trump and Co colluding with the Russians, or not? More importantly, should Trump and Durham get away with the bullshit lie that the Russia Probe was a hoax?

Can our intelligence services prove it any more than you have? Did Mueller prove it any more than you can?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.8    one month ago
Trump was colluding with Russia!

Once and for all, PROVE IT instead of merely bleating incessantly the same tired old lie over and over and over.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago
reeing Trump was colluding with Russia during the 2016 Presidential race is a start...

Why would I disagree with Robert Mueller and his team of Democratic lawyers?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.5    one month ago
n people is ok ( he lied throughout the '16 campaign about having no business dealings with Russia) as long as he didnt lie to the FBI? T

[deletedI] think it's odd to get upset about a candidate lying during a campaign. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.15    one month ago

Let me try to bring some clarity to this tug of war

It All Began With Russia: Donald Trump’s 4 Great Betrayals of the Nation – Mother Jones

....his first great betrayal—the one that made the others possible—was Russia.

To the dying days of his presidency, Trump has insisted Russiagate was all a hoax. And in a cult-like fashion, the Republican Party has loudly and fervently echoed his denials and phony counter-accusations. When Trump, in one of his last acts as president, awarded Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Trump’s pit-bull defender, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the White House   cited   Jordan’s effort to “unmask the Russia hoax.” But the facts are quite clear—this was no hoax—and they are worth reviewing and remembering, as the first president who helped a foreign power attack the United States leaves office.

Here are the indisputable basics. Russian leader Vladimir Putin ordered a covert assault, employing information warfare, on the 2016 US election. A 2017 report of the intelligence community, the 2019 report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a 2018 House Intelligence Committee report, and a 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report all stated that. The attack was real. Each of these reports—with the exception of the one from the House Intelligence Committee, which was written by highly partisan GOP allies of Trump—note that one critical aim of the Russian operation was to elect Trump. And it is certainly obvious that Moscow’s hack-and-leak covert action, which released stolen Democratic emails and documents, hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and boosted Trump, particularly when it started disseminating pilfered material hours after the emergence of the   Access Hollywood   video that showed Trump boasting that he grabbed women “by the pussy.” (The weaponized leaking of these Democratic records continued through the final four weeks of the campaign.)

So there’s one big incontrovertible fact: Trump won the presidency with Russian assistance. Ands another: Trump and his lieutenants aided and abetted Putin’s attack on the United States.

For years, Trump and his minions have strived to define the main issue of the scandal as collusion: was there evidence that he or his campaign directly conspired with Moscow’s clandestine project to torpedo the American election? Trump contended there was no joint plotting and, thus, the whole scandal was a scam perpetuated by his diabolical political enemies, including the Deep State, the Democratic Party, and the media. His defenders in the conservative world, the rightwing press, and Congress pushed this point hard. And they (falsely) claimed as slam-dunk evidence the Mueller probe’s conclusion that it had not uncovered evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians, misrepresenting this finding as a declaration there had been no collusion. 

Trump largely succeeded with his no-collusion defense. Indeed, no smoking gun evidence showing him scheming directly with Russians materialized. But even so, there was, at a minimum, overwhelming evidence of   attempted   collusion. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, then the Trump campaign chief, and Jared Kushner held a secret meeting in Trump Tower with a Russian emissary, whom they were told was bringing them Clinton dirt as part of a secret Kremlin effort to help Trump. Ultimately, the information she shared wasn’t of much use, and there is no indication much came of this meeting. But this get-together—which didn’t become known to the public until after the election—showed that the Trump gang was made aware of Moscow’s desire to covertly assist Trump and that it was willing to conspire with Putin. At the time, the meeting signaled to Moscow that the Trump campaign would look kindly upon covert Kremlin intervention in the 2016 election. This was encouragement. 

Moreover, as multiple reports have pointed out, Manafort, throughout the election, was in secret contact with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former business colleague, and shared with him inside polling data from the Trump campaign. Mueller characterized Kilimnik as an “associate” of Russian intelligence. And the Senate Intelligence Committee report—which was approved by the Republican members of the committee— described   Kilimnik as a “Russian intelligence officer.” The committee put it bluntly: “Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services.” It also noted that Manafort had directly and indirectly communicated with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and several pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. 

This is a headline that has not gotten the attention it deserved: Trump’s top campaign aide was in touch with a Russian intelligence officer, while Moscow was attacking the United States. It gets worse. The Senate report stated, “The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the [Russian intelligence’s] hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” Yes, according to this GOP-endorsed report, Trump’s campaign manager was in close contact with a Russian intelligence officer possibly tied to Putin’s clandestine assault on the 2016 campaign to help elect Trump. That’s a tremendous scandal in of itself. The report also revealed that the committee found “two pieces of information” that “raise the possibility” that Manafort himself was connected “to the hack-and-leak operations.” The report’s discussion of that particular information, though, was redacted. The report additionally noted that Manafort explored using his access to Trump to help advance Russian interests by promoting a pro-Russia “peace plan” for Ukraine that would allow Russia to control eastern Ukraine. This Senate investigation—which took years to complete—strongly suggested attempted, if not actual, collusion beyond the Trump Tower meeting. It indicated that the full Russia story still remains unknown.

After the election, the public also learned that Trump had engaged in his own direct act of attempted Russian collaboration: During the campaign, Trump—though he publicly asserted he had nothing to do with Russia—had been secretly negotiating a tower deal in Moscow that could have earned him hundreds of millions of dollars, and his company had sought help for this project from Putin’s office. Trump had covered-up his private Russian dealings while running for president. 

But there was much more to the Trump-Russia scandal than the question of collusion. Whether or not Trump and his crew worked directly with Russian operatives, they assisted the operation by denying its existence. This is where Trump betrayed the nation in full public light. Throughout the campaign, he and his aides publicly declared that the Russian attack was not happening. Manafort, Trump Jr., and others dismissed talk of Moscow’s interference as poppycock. In his debates with Clinton, Trump mocked accusations of Russian intervention. Roger Stone, a longtime Trump lieutenant, repeatedly asserted Russia had nothing to do with the hack-and-leak operation targeting the Democrats, and he amplified the cover story created by Putin’s operatives that the hack had been orchestrated by a Romanian hacker. Yet at the same time, Trump was trying to use Stone as a conduit to get inside information from WikiLeaks on what Russia-swiped goods it had on Clinton and when they would be released—an action that Trump, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee,   essentially lied about   to Mueller. (Stone was subsequently found guilty of lying to investigators about his interactions with WikiLeaks—apparently   covering up Trump’s role   in this—and was sentenced to 40 months. In December, Trump pardoned Stone, Manafort, and other Russiagate figures.)

Trump and his henchmen were providing cover for Putin’s operation. Here was how the Senate report summed it up: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort… The Campaign was aware of the extensive media reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.” The GOP-led committee concluded that Trump, Manafort, and others aided the Russian assault by dismissing its existence. And there was that famous   moment   in July 2016 when Trump encouraged Russia to hack Clinton’s email. According to Mueller, Russian hackers hours later tried to do just that. 

Lost in the shouting over collusion has been the fundamental point that Trump helped an enemy of the United States pull off an attack because that assault was beneficial for him. Call it treason, call it treachery, it was a foul deed. And Trump’s skulduggery worked. The Russian operation continued through the campaign, and Trump gained from it. 

Trump’s denials of this attack were perhaps the first sign of how he would lead the Republicans into the perilous territory of alternative reality. Because Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, was insisting there was no Kremlin operation, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got in line. He refused President Barack Obama’s request to join the White House in issuing a bipartisan response to Putin’s assault. McConnell sided with party—that is, Trump—over country. Consequently, the Russia attack became a highly partisan matter, and the United States response was undermined. In this hyper-politicized environment, the Clinton campaign’s warnings about Russian intervention were largely disregarded. Trump was able reap the reward of Putin’s operation without paying a price for assisting an enemy. 

With Putin’s operatives on Trump’s side—and Trump echoing Putin’s we-didn’t-do-it cover story—Trump won the election. Afterward, he continued to have Putin’s back. He ceaselessly railed about the Russia “hoax” and the investigations underway. Enraged about the FBI’s ongoing probe, he fired its director, James Comey. In a May 2017 Oval Office   meeting , Trump yukked it up with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and told them he was not concerned about Moscow’s attack on the 2016 election. In other words, thanks and carry on! (In that meeting, Trump also disclosed highly classified information to the Russians.) The following year, during a joint press conference with Putin in Helsinki, Trump shockingly   said   he accepted Putin’s denials of Russian intervention in the election over the conclusions of his own intelligence community. Trying to escape the Russian taint on his electoral victory, Trump never once said he would hold Moscow accountable for its brazen assault on American democracy. Meanwhile, he took numerous steps that Mueller considered possible criminal acts of obstruction of justice to thwart the Russia investigations. And as the 2020 election approached, Trump refused to address the possibility of another Russian attack and smothered discussion of this threat. 

Through all of this, he and his GOP handmaids devised distractions and outlandish conspiracy theories to deflect attention from the bottom line of the Russia scandal: Moscow covertly influenced the 2016 election, and Trump abetted that attack.

Trump, the Republicans, Fox, and other rightwing disinformation pushers claimed that the Obama administration had unlawfully spied on the Trump campaign and insisted that the Russia investigation was a baseless probe concocted to block Trump from the presidency. (The Senate Intelligence Committee report noted that Manafort “represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” that the FBI and CIA were right to be alarmed by contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign, and that the bureau was justified in opening up an investigation in mid-summer 2016). Trump and his disciples obsessed over the Steele memos, which the FBI had indeed improperly used to justify a surveillance warrant for Carter Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser. But the surveillance of Page, who had made a suspicious trip to Moscow in 2016, was but one thin slice of the investigation, and, contrary to the Trumpers’ conspiracy theories, the Steele memos were not used to open the Russia investigation. And though the Steele memos’ sensational allegation about Trump and a “pee tape” was likely inaccurate, the Senate report revealed other episodes in which Russian intelligence possibly had developed   kompromat —blackmail material—on Trump based on his personal conduct during trips to Russia. 

During Trump’s first impeachment, House Republicans relied on the false notion that Ukraine, not Russia, had intervened in the 2016 election to defend their Dear Leader. (Trump’s effort to pressure the Ukrainian president to manufacture a phony investigation to show this—which would clear Russia—had led to that initial impeachment.) For years, Trump’s Republican loyalists, following his lead, lied about the Russia scandal and took whatever desperate measures they could cook up to miscast it as nothing but a partisan crusade to destroy Trump. They all were complicit. They all helped Putin and Trump get away with it. They all surrendered to Russia. 

This was the original sin of the Trump presidency. It doesn’t get much worse than a commander-in-chief providing aid and comfort to an enemy. But that’s precisely what Trump did.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.22  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.18    one month ago

I do not have to prove it. Guiliani admitted it!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.21    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.24  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.17    one month ago

You must have been in a coma to ask that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.25  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.22    one month ago
I do not have to prove it.

No, you don't have to do the impossible. 

I damn sure didn't expect you to be able to prove it, because I know from past experience that you can't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.24    one month ago

Still waiting for your next deflection instead of the proof you always claim to have but never produce.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.23    one month ago

Texan, you couldnt out debate or out argue a pile of warm shit.  And yet you often post dozens of times a day.  What a waste.

I just posted an analysis of Trump campaign and Russia, almost all of it based on the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020.  It mentions specific instances of Trump's campaign intending to collude with Russia. 

Because no one was officially charged with collusion you think that means nothing ever happened. 

Read the damn analysis I just posted or SU. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.27    one month ago
Texan, you couldnt out debate or out argue a pile of warm shit.  And yet you often post dozens of times a day.  What a waste.

I'm sure the sheer irony of your statement will go undetected by you. And I suppose it is a good thing that I just have to debate you then!

Read the damn analysis I just posted or SU.

I'll post whatever the fuck I like, and if you want to read it, do it.  Or not, I don't give a fuck if you do or not.

Say, aren't you running late to your "I Hate Trump" meeting?

Aren't they waiting for you to gavel the meeting to order?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.29  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.28    one month ago

I dont mind you posting. Its a free country and the site lets you have your say. 

Im just pointing out that almost all of your comments are completely worthless. You have no idea how to argue your points. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.30  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.29    one month ago
I dont mind you posting. Its a free country and the site lets you have your say. 

My, my, how very magnanimous of you!

Im just pointing out that almost all of your comments are completely worthless. You have no idea how to argue your points. 

In the future, when you can't understand my posts, let me know so I can clarify them for you.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.3.31  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago

NOT according to "your" idea of what the Mueller report sez.

Mueller said THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

Your problem with that is?????

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.32  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.31    one month ago
Mueller said THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

Point out where he said that, will you? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.33  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.31    one month ago
Mueller said THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

That right there is their problem, They refuse to accept The Great Mueller Report because they told us for so long that it was going to bring Trump down. They didn't know what hit 'em when it fizzled out.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.11    one month ago
THE FACTS: This refrain about the Mueller report stating there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is wrong.

Trump’s assertion that his campaign denied all access to Russians is false. The Mueller report and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Clinton.

On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.

He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.

Mueller noted some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

This makes it all very clear to me. Thanks for posting it, John

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.35  Trout Giggles  replied to  1stwarrior @2.3.31    one month ago

Actually, he said that "collusion" is not a legal term. He didn't say it didn't happen

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.3.36  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @2.3.4    one month ago

But that never happened. The Mueller Report said so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.33    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.3.38  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.27    one month ago

No charges or convictions prove it never happened.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.39  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.37    one month ago

Regurgitating talking points spoon fed by progressive liberal talking heads hardly qualifies as discussion.

At tines, TDS doesn't seem to allow for it amongst its victims.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.3.38    one month ago
No charges or convictions prove it never happened.

utter nonsense

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.20    one month ago

Pointing out someone's support for Bill Clinton is taunting now?  

Can't wait to see that standard evenly applied...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.35    one month ago
e said that "collusion" is not a legal term. He didn't say it didn't happen

How dishonest.  Collusion and conspiracy are, per Mueller, synonymous and he used conspiracy in his report simply because the statute does. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
2.3.43  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.29    one month ago

“…no idea how to argue…”

…if it doesn’t contain an I, me, we and the compulsory demand of an explanation to a nebulous question…then they somehow think they have vanquished all dissent. All that is missing is the obligatory emoji.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.44  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.43    one month ago
the compulsory demand of an explanation to a nebulous question…then they somehow think they have vanquished all dissent.

What they dont understand is that it is obvious to everyone else that that is all they have. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.43    one month ago

like this one:

jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

I particularly detest that one. I don't even know what it means

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
2.3.46  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.44    one month ago

“…that that is all they have.”

First and foremost, this is a venue for expressing opinions. Each and every post is only an expression of one’s opinion.

So be it. 

The incessant demand for verification of an opinion only diminishes one’s understanding of the topic at hand and gives them an out, a Pyrrhic victory, and a soft my pillow upon which to rest their weary and exhausted head. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.47  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.1    one month ago
When did Trump lie under oath about this ?

Actually, Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller. 

You do  understand that's when the FBI would get involved, right? 

There is no need for someone to be under oath when being questioned by the FBI. Lying to the FBI is a federal crime. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.3.48  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.45    one month ago

I always thought it was someone in a box. BF actually said it was more of a 'hello, is anyone in there' kind of thing.

Either way it seems more of a taunt.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.49  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @2.3.48    one month ago
'hello, is anyone in there'

Yup, it is 'anybody home?' or 'do you have your brain turned on?'.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.50  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.47    one month ago
Actually, Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller. 

Let's see you provide a link to Mueller declaring Trump perjured himself about the Trump towers project. .  

eis no need for someone to be under oath when being questioned by the FB I

so what? Donald Trump didn't lie to the FBI about Trump towers project. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.51  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.49    one month ago

That's definitely a taunt. It would be fine if one of my friends used that because we're joking around but I wouldn't like it if certain people used it

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.3.52  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.51    one month ago

Well when someone makes an absurdly stupid comment such as:  "Biden is a fascist" or "Trump won in 2020", it might be appropriate.    jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.53  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.3.52    one month ago

true that

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.54  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.50    one month ago

Trump, November 29, 2018:

I DON'T KNOW WHEN I DECIDED BUT DURING A PERIOD OF TIME I WAS NEVER VERY ENTHUSED BY THE SUMMER DURING A PERIOD WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. MY FOCUS WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. WHEN I WENT FOR PRESIDENT THAT IS I MEAN I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO BUSINESS. I WAS DOING A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WHEN I WAS RUNNING. AFTER I WON, OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T DO BUSINESS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY -- I RAN A BUSINESS AND IN FACT I WAS THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN PAINT SIMULTANEOUSLY RAN A BUSINESS. THAT WAS A PROJECT I DID NOT DO. IT WAS A PROJECT AND NUMBER ONE IS THAT I WAS FOCUSED AND RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WANTED THAT TO BE MY PRIMARY FOCUS, NOT RUNNING OR BUILDING A BUILDING. THIS WAS A DEAL THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. NO DEAL. THIS WAS AN OPTION AND I GUESS I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT TO BE SPECIFIC SO TO MY WAY OF THINKING THERE WAS AN OPTION IT WAS AN OPTION I DECIDED NOT TO DO. WE DO NOT HAVE EXCUSE ME -- EXCUSE ME, THIS WAS AN OPTION IN A FORUM BUT HERE VERY SIMPLE WE HAD A POSITION TO POSSIBLY DO A DEAL TO BUILD A BUILDING OF SOME KIND IN MOSCOW. I DECIDED NOT TO DO IT. THE PRIMARY REASON THAT COULD HAVE BEEN OTHER REASONS BUT THE PRIMARY REASON WAS SIMPLE. I WAS FOCUSED ON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG IF I DID DO IT. I WAS RUNNING MY BUSINESS WHILE I WAS CAMPAIGNING AND THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE I WOULD NOT HAVE ONE IN WHICH I WOULD HAVE GONE BACK INTO THE BUSINESS AND WHY SHOULD I LOSE OPPORTUNITY? SO, HERE IS THE STORY.

Trump in written answer to Mueller's questions, April 2019:

Q: In October 2015, a “Letter of Intent,” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, was signed for a proposed Trump Organization project in Moscow (the “Trump Moscow project”).

A: Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B which required no equity or expenditure on our end and was consistent with our ongoing efforts to expand into significant markets around the world.

I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to “Mr. Peskov” at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.

Note that Trump announced his candidacy for President in JUNE of 2015, then in OCTOBER of that same year signed the Letter of Intent. 

In November 2018 Trump pontificates about the deal, in April 2019 he can't seem to remember a fucking thing about the deal. 

There is a plethora of documented evidence that Trump continued to pursue the deal well into 2016. Ignore it if you wish. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.55  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.54    one month ago

As was always going to be the case, no link to Mueller claiming Trump lied under oath about the Trump towers project.  Because that never happened.

Just  two statements that don't in any way suggest Trump perjured himself.   You should probably look up the word. 

ethora of documented evidence that Trump continued to pursue the deal well into 2016.

Here's how it works.  In order for him to have he lied under oath, you have to show where he specifically said all work on the deal stopped in 2015...  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.56  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.55    one month ago

This article is self explanatory

Trump’s Lies About Moscow Tower are Impeachable | Washington Monthly

I’m not sure when Donald Trump and the people close to him started to believe themselves that they actually had a shot at winning the nomination, but the thought must have begun to occur to them as fall turned to winter in 2015. Actually winning was probably not part of the original plan. However, getting a Trump Tower built in Moscow definitely was. That’s been clear for a while now, but BuzzFeed lays it all out for you in a new   piece   written by Anthony Cormier and Jason Leopold. The two men who were doing the legwork on getting a tower built were childhood friends Michael Cohen and Felix Sater. To get an idea of how Sater viewed Trump’s presidential run, let’s look at the following excerpt:

After Trump announced his candidacy in July 2015, Sater saw the opportunity of a lifetime: Why not parlay the presidential run into a business deal? “I figured, he’s in the news, his name is generating a lot of good press,” Sater told BuzzFeed News. “A lot of Russians weren’t willing to pay a premium licensing fee to put Donald’s name on their building. Now maybe they would be.”

Simply by announcing his candidacy for president and getting a lot of news coverage, Trump was upping his chances of making licensing deals. There was a limited window on how long this opportunity would last, so there was a certain urgency to cashing in while the irons were hot. Cohen and Sater certainly acted like they needed to move with haste, and they kept Trump apprised of their progress throughout. In October, they seemed to have things secured:

The licensing agreement came together relatively quickly. Sater turned to a wealthy Moscow developer he knew from the days when Ivanka spun around in Putin’s chair: Andrey Rozov. His company, IC Expert, became the developer, and the sides traded proposals. At one point, as the letter of intent was passed back and forth during the negotiations, the Trump Organization changed an upfront fee from $100,000 to $900,000. On Oct. 28, 2015, the day of the third Republican presidential debate, Trump personally signed the letter of intent. In a celebratory email sent from his Trump Organization account, Cohen asked Sater and Rozov that the “nature and content of the attached LOI not be disclosed” until later and said “we are truly looking forward to this wonderful opportunity.”

This is very significant. On October 28, 2015, Donald J. Trump Sr. signed on the dotted line a letter of intent to build a tower in Moscow. They immediately decided that this agreement should be kept secret. Had the public known about the project, they would have had a much different impression of Trump’s   commentary on Vladimir Putin .

Trump spent the summer and fall of 2015 telling anyone who would listen that he had a great relationship with Vladimir Putin and that he was a great leader. He repeatedly suggested that he’d get along with Putin much better than President Obama had been able to and that this would be a positive for the country. Typical of this time period was an appearance Trump made on Bill O’Reilly’s show on September 29 where he said “I will tell you that I think in terms of leadership, [Putin] is getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

“Putin is now taking over what we started and he’s going into Syria, and he frankly wants to fight ISIS, and I think that’s a wonderful thing,” Trump told Fox News Tuesday, after ending his boycott against the network. “If he wants to fight ISIS, let him fight ISIS. Why do we always have to do everything?”

What people didn’t know was that in this exact period of time, he had Cohen and Sater hammering out the details on a licensing agreement for this:

The tower — a sheer, glass-encased obelisk situated on a river — would have soared above every other building in Moscow, the architectural drawings show. And the sharply angled skyscraper would have climaxed in a diamond-shaped pinnacle emblazoned with the word “Trump,” putting his name atop the continent’s tallest structure.

As Putin ramped up Russia’s military commitment in Syria in an effort to bolster the regime of Bashir al-Assad, Trump kept approving of the move and   suggesting his real motive   was to attack ISIS, a sworn enemy of Assad. Here’s what he told the   Guardian   two weeks before his signed the letter of intent on a Moscow Tower:

“[Putin]’s going to want to bomb ISIS [in Syria] because he doesn’t want ISIS going into Russia and so he’s going to want to bomb ISIS. Vladimir Putin is going to want to really go after ISIS, and if he doesn’t it’ll be a big shock to everybody.”

From the outside, Trump’s behavior was bizarre and hard to understand. Being so friendly to Vladimir Putin didn’t seem consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives and it certainly didn’t look like a coherent political strategy. Phillip Bump of the   Washington Post   noted   this in December:

…Putin’s poll numbers among   Americans   are terrible. Globally, Russia is   viewed very negatively , according to Pew Research, with two-thirds of Americans holding an unfavorable view of the country.   Three-quarters   of Americans have no confidence in Putin to do the right thing — which presumably includes offering political endorsements.

If Trump didn’t care about U.S. interests and his actions and words made no sense politically, why was he acting this way?

If people were suspicious before, their concerns were amped up to eleven by statements Trump made on December 18 and December 20. Appearing on   Morning Joe   on the 18th, Trump made news when he dismissed host Joe Scarborough’s observation that Putin kills journalists who don’t agree with him by saying, “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.” He followed that up on December 20 by   telling   George Stephanopoulos that there was no proof that Putin had killed anyone:

“…in all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t’ seen that. I don’t know that he has. Have you been able to prove that? Do you know the names of the reporters that he’s killed? Because I’ve been — you know, you’ve been hearing this, but I haven’t seen the name. Now, I think it would be despicable if that took place, but I haven’t’ seen any evidence that he killed anybody in terms of reporters.”

There was a lot of outrage on both points. That Trump would deny that Putin kills journalists was curious and offensive, but that he’d assert that even if it were true it was no worse than what America does was seen as delusional and unpatriotic.

At that point, I think a lot of people began to seriously question whether Trump had some financial ties or interests in Russia that explained his behavior. And, of course, that’s exactly what was going on. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was hired in   September or October 2015   by the   Washington Free Beacon   to look into Trump’s business practices and he testified to the House Intelligence Committee that one of the very first things he looked into was Felix Sater’s relationship to Donald Trump. That was certainly prescient considering what Sater was doing at that exact moment in time. He also testified that he quickly noticed that Trump had made a number of trips to Russia but had never actually consummated a deal. He obviously didn’t know that that same month Trump signed a letter of intent to build a Moscow project. Simpson hired Christopher Steele in this time period precisely because he wanted to understand why Trump had so many connections to Russia and why he was saying “weird things about Putin” but didn’t appear to have any actual business interests there.

As Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination became more plausible, the interest in striking a Moscow tower deal seemed to recede a bit, at least for a time. People were asking a lot of questions and news of a deal would have blown up into a political scandal. Yet, in spite of this, Cohen and Sater resumed their efforts in the spring and didn’t really give up until the day Trump tweeted this out:

For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)   July 26, 2016

That was true only in the narrowest sense of the word. But it was enough for Felix Sater to know that his efforts had come to nothing.

Sater kept holding out hope — working his sources in Russia right through the convention — until July 26, 2016, when Sater, while relaxing in the backyard of his Long Island home, read a   tweet   by Trump and knew right then that the deal was dead.

“‘Fuck me,’ I thought to myself. All that work for nothing,’” Sater told BuzzFeed News.

He poured himself a big glass of scotch, he recalled, and lit a cigar.

I don’t know about you, but for me the degree to which Trump concealed and lied about this information is impeachable on its own before we even get to possible coordination in the general election. Trump’s primary interest in running for president was not originally to actually win either the nomination or the presidency. He spent his campaign basically auditioning for Vladimir Putin in the hope that he’d be able to put his name on the tallest tower in Europe.

And he did not tell the truth about this and still hasn’t.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.57  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.55    one month ago
Here’s what is not in dispute:   For most of the time he was running for president , Mr. Trump was also encouraging negotiations that would have put his name on a 100-plus-story tower in Moscow and yielded tens of millions of dollars in revenue for his company. He did this secretly, while publicly defending Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and arguing against sanctions against Russia. And he repeatedly deceived U.S. voters by saying he had no business in the country.
...we know Mr. Trump thought it perfectly acceptable to clandestinely pursue his personal business interest with the government of a prime U.S. adversary while advancing a presidential platform of improving relations with the regime. Whether that was illegal, it was a profound betrayal of the voters. Opinion | Trump’s lies on his business dealings in Russia were a profound betrayal of voters - The Washington Post
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.58  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.55    one month ago
As was always going to be the case, no link to Mueller claiming Trump lied under oath about the Trump towers project.  Because that never happened.

WTF does what Mueller had to say have to do with it Sean? I never cited Mueller as a source and you wouldn't fucking believe anything Mueller said anyway. 

Just  two statements that don't in any way suggest Trump perjured himself.   You should probably look up the word. 

Where the fuck did I ever claim that Trump perjured himself Sean? Hint: NOWHERE. 

Here's how it works.  In order for him to have he lied under oath, you have to show where he specifically said all work on the deal stopped in 2015...  

AGAIN, where the fuck did I ever claim that Trump lied under oath? Hint: NOWHERE.

Trump LIED in his written answers to Mueller. NO thinking person could possibly believe that Trump remembered something in November of 2018 but could not recall it in April of 2019. Unless of course your claim is that Trump has cognitive issues and forgets shit after 5 months...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.59  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.55    one month ago

Oh and BTFW, I note that you don't even try to refute that Trump stated what I posted. I realize that all too much of what Trump says is a narcissistic 'stream of consciousness' but if you stick with it, you can garner that Trump was pursuing a deal with Russia while he was running for POTUS. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.60  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.58    one month ago
WTF does what Mueller had to say have to do with it

Now we enter the theater of the absurd, where you ignore all reason, logic and your own to pretend you've made some point. 

You claimed  "Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller. "  And now you wonder what Mueller has to do with this? 

Let everyone bask in the absurdity of that.  You don't think Mueller's opinion  is relevant to  the question of whether Trump lied to him.  How preposterous can you be?  Do you think, maybe, Mueller and his team of lawyers that spent millions of dollars and god knows how many man hours trying to prove Trump lied to them, might have some light to shed on the issue of whether Trump lied to them?  

here the fuck did I ever claim that Trump perjured himself Sean? Hint: NOWHERE

Now you've  moved on to the playing stupid defense.  Why don't you look up the word perjury, and then read this sentence "Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller" I confident you can figure this out.

here the fuck did I ever claim that Trump lied under oath?

Try and read this sentence again. Slowly if need be. " Trump lied in his written answers to Mueller. "\

Trump LIED in his written answers to Mueller.

That's not what Mueller said. 

Trump remembered something in November of 2018 but could not recall it in April of 2019.

What specific fact do you claim he remembered in November of 2018 and not in 2019? Point out the exact discrepancy. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.61  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.59    one month ago
ou can garner that Trump was pursuing a deal with Russia while he was running for POTUS. 

No  shit. What point do you even imagine you made? 

What part of this statement  "Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B" do you imagine contradicts that? 

Your "gotcha" consists of  two statements where Trump admitted to pursing the deal while running for President...  I don't even need to write anything, you rebut yourself.   

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.62  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.58    one month ago

Any evidence Trump lied to Mueller about the Moscow Towers yet? Any at all? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.63  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.62    one month ago

That is beside the point. Trump and Rudy And Donald Jr have all now admitted that Trump was negotiating with Russia to build Trump Tower Moscow right up until election day in 2016. Trump even offered Putin a free fifty million dollar penthouse to try to get the deal. That proves Trump definitely was colluding with damn Russia during the 2016 campaign...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.64  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.3.63    one month ago
That is beside the point.

The claim was made Trump lied to Mueller about the Moscow Tower. It is the point. 

That proves Trump definitely was colluding with damn Russia during the 2016 campaign...

Of course it does no such thing. If he had been , Mueller would have said so.  Not one single person was indicted for  conspiring with Russia over the 2016 campaign. Not one. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.65  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.62    one month ago

I already posted it Sean.

Do you believe that Trump remembered in November but not in the following April?

Do you believe that he wasn't talking to anyone about it while at the same time pursuing his business interests?

Are you one that believes that Trump was so busy running for President that he'd let a multimillion dollar deal 'die on the vine'? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.66  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.64    one month ago
If he had been , Mueller would have said so.

That's false Sean and anyone who actually READ Mueller's report would know why. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.67  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.65    one month ago

Smart of you to drop your entire argument about Trump testifying under oath. 

I already posted it Sean.

You obviously didn't understand what you posted.

o you believe that Trump remembered in November but not in the following April

Just once, demonstrate what  he claimed in November and contradicted  in April.  Show the specific lie.   Mueller  and his team of all star lawyers couldn't do it. I'm sure you can though.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.68  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.66    one month ago
yone who actually READ Mueller's report would know why. 

Nonsense. Now you believe Mueller was forbidden from demonstrating Trump lied under oath?  Where do you get this stuff? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.69  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.67    one month ago
Smart of you to drop your entire argument about Trump testifying under oath. 

I never made that argument Sean. Why lie? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.3.70  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.68    one month ago
Nonsense. Now you believe Mueller was forbidden from demonstrating Trump lied under oath?  Where do you get this stuff? 

You're obviously having issues following the thread Sean. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.71  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.69    one month ago
never made that argument Sean. Why lie? 

Sure you did. You foolishly claimed he wasn't under oath  and then dropped it when it was clear just how foolish it was. 

You really need to understand your own arguments before you make them.

Just a reminder, you still haven't posted any proof that Trump lied in his written responses to Mueller's questions.  I'm sure Mueller and his team will be awestruck to learn what they missed, but you discovered. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3.72  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.3.70    one month ago
obviously having issues following the thread Sean. 

You are obviously having issues following your own arguments.  You just throw words out there without understanding their implication. Slow down and think before posting to save yourself this trouble.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    one month ago

Ok, what has the Biden/Harris Administration done NOW that this article is necessary to deflect away from?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    one month ago

penny-600w-54469642.jpg

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  seeder  JBB    one month ago

John Durham has not, will not and cannot convince any grand juries that FBI and US Intelligence agents who were picking up on all the ongoing communications between Donald Trump and the Russians before and during the 2016 Presidentisl campaign were lying...

Because, they were not. Durham pitches curveballs.

And now, even Don Trump's Number One Cock Holster (Outside of Texas) Johnathan Fucking Turley is finally says so. The Trump Russia Probe was 100% Legit!

Deep State? My Ass! 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @5    one month ago

No, it was a total waste of time and resources and came up empty, Trump was never charged or convicted of anything because the evidence wasn't there.

Stick around for when Durham releases his bombshell findings.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    one month ago

feel free to provide the redacted and classified portions of the report here, so we can decide for ourselves.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    one month ago

"Stick around for when Durham releases his bombshell findings."

We're still waiting on the indictments for the Obama administration.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    one month ago
Stick around for when Durham releases his bombshell findings.

I'd tamper my enthusiasm if I were you. Durham is out of gas. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    one month ago
No, it was a total waste of time and resources and came up empty

The Mueller Investigation recouped money to the treasury AND resulted in charges against 34 people and 3 companies.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.4    one month ago

Didn't cost us taxpayers a dime did it?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.5    one month ago

Oh I'm sure it did cost taxpayers, especially after Trump pardoned Manafort. 

NY State is going after Manafort now and I hope they garner a forfeiture of the properties that he bought with his ill gotten gains. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.6    one month ago

I thought that his assets were seized along with others - thought that paid for it.  I'm dumb when it comes to these matters though.    

I hope so also - I'd love to see these scum behind bars - stripped of every asset.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.7    one month ago

Some were, like his apartment in Trump Tower, which is now owned by the US government. But there were other assets that the Feds hadn't quite taken yet and they canceled their seizure after Trump pardoned him. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @5.1.8    one month ago

Fucking bastard

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    one month ago

That article was hard to read. Terribly written.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ender @6    one month ago

Turley is overrated. He only writes rightwing swill...

Yet, even he admits Durham has not got anything.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Ronin2
Veronica
Hallux
Snuffy
Sparty On


45 visitors