Opinion | John Durham's flop is only the latest of many Trump Russia coverup failures - The Washington Post
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Paul Waldman andGreg SargentMay 31, 2022 at 5:36 p.m. EDT Placeholder while article actions load
For three years, conservatives hyped John Durham's investigation into the origins of the FBI's original investigation of Russia's effort to help Donald Trump get elected president in 2016. Durham, a prosecutor appointed in 2019 by then-Attorney General William P. Barr, would blow the lid off the real scandal, they said, which was a conspiracy between Democrats and the FBI to get Trump. This would show there was never anything to the Russiagate scandal.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debatesArrowRight
Durham had all the time and resources he needed. As of last December, a partial accounting found he had spent about $3.8 million. So what did he come up with?
He delivered two indictments, both of people no one ever would have heard of and both for the crime of lying to investigators. On Tuesday, one of them, lawyer Michael Sussmann, was acquitted by a federal jury.
All that time and effort and expense, for one acquittal of one lawyer for supposedly not being upfront with investigators.
Durham does have one more indictment pending, of a researcher who allegedly lied about information he got pertaining to the scandal. But even if he is convicted, one has to ask: Is that all there is?
To appreciate the significance of this moment, you have to remember that Trump and Republicans have spent years working to show that there was never any serious cause for concern about the idea that Russia went to extraordinary lengths to try to swing the 2016 election to Trump.
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find evidence that Trump criminally colluded with Russia. But he found that Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" and that Trump's campaign expected to "benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." Mueller also refrained from explicitly exonerating Trump of criminal obstruction of justice.
Durham had tried to prove that Sussmann had lied to the FBI when he came to them with supposed evidence of some kind of suspicious electronic communication between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank.
Sussmann was accused of concealing the fact that he was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, and prosecutors painted this as part of a larger scheme by the Clinton campaign to nefariously undermine Trump. Of this Sussmann was acquitted, and jurors indicated that they thought this wasn't a particularly close call and that the prosecution was politically motivated.
Durham's probe was supposed to suggest that the FBI investigation that ultimately led to Russiagate was tainted to its core by politics, thus unmasking this whole scandal as a big nothingburger. In this sense, Durham's flop is only the latest in a long string of failures.
"The Durham probe has turned into what conservatives always accused the Mueller probe of being: a politically premised fishing expedition that has failed to discredit its original target, namely the Russia investigation," prominent national security lawyer Bradley Moss told us.
None of these efforts have been able to disappear a fundamental truth: The stubborn facts show that Russiagate actually was an extraordinarily grave and disturbing scandal.
Among them: the well-documented Kremlin effort to gin up support for Trump and opposition to Clinton on American social media. Their hacking of Democratic Party systems, resulting in data dumps by WikiLeaks to aid the Trump campaign. The copious contacts between Trump, his family and his advisers with Russian officials. The fact that his own campaign chairman was secretly sharing confidential campaign information with a Russian intelligence officer. And so much more.
Crucially, this was the culmination of years of efforts by Trump, his allies and members of the Republican Party to cast doubt on the seriousness of the Russia scandal. Here's a partial list:
- Even before the 2016 election, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats against organizing a bipartisan statement decrying Russian interference, vowing to cast it as unacceptable partisan politics.
- Just before release of the Mueller report, Barr pre-spun the contents in a profoundly misleading way designed to make its conclusions appear far less serious.
- In 2019, when a Justice Department inspector general investigation revealed significant errors and omissions in the FBI's original applications for surveillance authority, Republicans widely distorted the truth about the findings, claiming this showed much more serious problems with the origins of the Russia probe.
- During the 2020 election, Trump's homeland security chief intervened to slow the release of an intelligence report raising alarms about another possible round of Russian electoral interference on Trump's behalf.
- When intelligence agencies briefed members of both parties about this specter of Russian interference, this enraged Trump, who could conceive of this only as an effort to harm him politically.
In some ways, that campaign was successful. Trump pardoned a long list of cronies with ties to the Russia scandal (Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos). And every Republican is pretty much required to say it's no big deal if a hostile foreign power helps a presidential candidate get elected, provided that candidate is a Republican.
But the long-held dream of Trump and his allies to erase the enormous significance and depravity of the Russiagate scandal stands as decidedly unfulfilled. And thus it will likely remain.
Tags
Who is online
116 visitors
They haven't got Dick to show for it!
As usual.
Bunch of losers!
So the Washington Post is still running on fiction.
No doubt the left will hilariously run with this OPINION piece as absolute fact
And the scales will never fall from the eyes of those that cannot see the truth because their twisted hate overrides their ability to visualize without it!
A swamp verdict from a swamp judge and jury. So Hillary’s shyster goes free.
A travesty of justice for anyone but the most extreme partisans out there.
The truth always hurts those who hide their fears behind generations of inbred hate. One would think, they would tire of it. But, with some that is all that they have to cling too.
One must ask certain parties here at NT...how do you like your crow? Roasted? Fried? Sauteed?
Raw!
Chew hard!
Let's try ONE more time:
Did Sussman tell the FBI he was not representing a client?
Was that true?
Did Sussman's firm charge Hillary's campaign for time spent at the FBI pushing crap?
Did Sussman's firm charge Hillary's campaign for a flash drive to transmit info to the FBI?
One more:
Why did Sussmann have a FBI Headquarters ID?
They (Perkins Coie) had an office there I believe since 2012............how convenient.
Convenient isn’t the adjective I would use. More like suspect or unholy.
See? No answer because they KNOW the verdict was wrong.
You've got it backwards. Not surprised.
No I don't. Look it up..................
Are you saying Coie gave the FBI an office in his firms building?
As usual.
That's the way is seems. Pretty strange is it not?
perfect example where facts just elude them. Don't know if it's will full ignorance or if they are just that far out of it.
Like a meal at McDonalds.............it's a combo but some seem to be two fries short of a happy meal.
They're close to the shake machines. Always broken with no hope of repair.
Um, Coie is long DEAD and gone Jeremy. Get educated.
Oh, and Tucker Carlson had a bit on his talk show all about this. You should go watch it...
Or you can go over to Fox Digital, which has multiple stories about this full of the type of innuendo you and yours so enjoy.
I'm sure that when you review the FACTS, you'll run right back here and retract that statement since members here all recognize that you made that false assumption in 'good faith'. /s
THAT was a pathetic dodge.
I don't play the childish games of veiled statements. If I have something to say, I'll outright say it. Just like I always have. I could careless about your feelings or how it makes you feel.
Now, you want to answer my question or play childish games?
How is stating FACTS veiled in any way Jeremy?
Coie is DEAD. Tucker Carlson DID have a bit on his show. There ARE stories all over Fox about it. ALL FACTS.
WTF are you blathering about?
Nothing in my comment has a fucking thing to do with 'feelings' Jeremy.
I answered your question by encouraging YOU to review the facts for yourself. I am well aware that you and yours prefer to have your hands held and to be drug kicking and screaming into reality, but I prefer to encourage self education because, though it's all too rare here, I believe that having members read facts for themselves furthers that goal.
So, I encourage you to adult and review the facts for yourself. If in that 'good faith' pursuit, you are incapable for some reason to find Tucker Carlson or Fox Digital on your own, if asked nicely, I will hold your hand and give you a link.
Oh, FFS pay attention to the conversation. When you can do that, then we'll talk.
Oh, FFS, stop trying to pretend that I'm somehow off track.
When YOU can dedicate as much time to pursuing the facts as you do in whining about MY comments, then you may be worth talking with.
I will when you are on track. Go back to 5.1.6 where I ask you a question. Instead of answering the question you went off on some unrelated rant (no surprise there) about Coie. I don't give a damn if he's dead, alive, or fondling pigeons in your bedroom.
How the FUCK can you claim with a straight face that Coie is 'unrelated' when YOUR question cited him:
He's fucking DEAD Jeremy. So NO, I said NOTHING about Coie giving the FBI ANYTHING because, he's DEAD.
But you DO give a damn whether he gave office space to the FBI from the grave.
Are you saying the FBI didn't have a workspace at Perkins Coie Law Office?
Still can't answer a simple question I see.
Still too intent on being obtuse to actually READ what I posted. You asked:
I answered:
Is NO too complex an answer for you Jeremy?
So you wasted all that time and energy on a simple 2 letter answer that should have been your response in 5.1.12.
I didn't waste any time Jeremy.
Members who bother to review the facts I pointed out for themselves can see who here is actually full of ignorance and/or just that far out of it. Hint: It isn't me.
I ask you a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. It takes less than a second to type either of those. You went on and on for about 3 hours with some of the most irrelevant shit.
This is why so many people laugh at the left. You all go on and on about inane stuff when a simple one word answer will suffice.
How the fuck did you get that from the comment you block quoted?
Here, let's see if I can help you follow the discussion.
So the claim is that Perkins Coie had an office @ FBI Headquarters .
I posted:
Judging from YOUR question, you agree that Jim did indeed have it backwards.
Yet Jim insisted:
Since then, Jim has been mum except for voting up the sad attempt at others to defend his backward claim.
Of course, Jeremy just had to chime in:
As an aside, it looks to me like Jeremy thinks 'Perkins Coie' is a person.
Anyway, I pointed out that Coie is DEAD so it should be obvious to any thinking person that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to give the FBI an office in his firm's building. I also pointed to sources that any curious member can review to garner information on the story.
So, you see goose, my initial reply to Jim was true. Thanks for agreeing.
Sure you did, Coie is part of a Law firm name, anyone with two brian cells to rub together could realize that. In Fact Coie as in Perkins Coie Law Firm is very much alive and a viable company so you claim that Coie is dead is bullshit. Paul Coie is dead, but you failed to mention.
"perfect example where facts just elude them. Don't know if it's will full ignorance or if they are just that far out of it."
We'll let you know when you provide facts. Until then just shut up already.
I should be surprised, but, just can't be, that Bill Barr, still kissing Trumps ass even after Trump shot him down and cost him his integrity and career, bragged that Durham did a great job for Trump, even though Durham totally lost.
Source
Thus far Durham is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. And he is not finished yet. Durham's stalling, deflections, projections are conveniently burning up time. If the GOP wins in the midterms, which is a possibility, the investigations into Trump will end, at least for a substantial period of time.
There is this however. Not saying it is likely at this point------But if The Putin Regime collapses, the Russian Army is totally defeated in Ukraine, it is within the realm of possibility that the new people running The Russian Federation will be eager to 'make things right', get themselves back into the World Economy and thusly bring Russia back into better position, economically, politically and internationally. So, if there are records, video, documents, witnesses or any other evidence implicating Trump, other American individuals, businesses and information platforms indicating collusion through financial mechanisms or other means, the new leaders of the Russian Federation may be eager to comply.
And there is always the spector of Helsinki. Nobody except Trump, the American stenographer/interpreter, Putin and the three other Russians in attendence behind those closed doors know what was discussed, promised or agreed to.
What leads you to believe that anything was promised or agreed to at all?
I would gladly look at ANY evidence you may have regarding it.
If you can provide some, of course.
Well based on the way Trump was standing it was clear Putin shoved something up his ass...
Well, gee, no wonder so many liberals are always confused--they think posts like yours is what passes as proof when asked to provide a scintilla of evidence.
I'm curious why liberals are so concerned with Trump's sex life? It's rather disturbing.
[Deleted]
Many liberals, especially here, seem obsessed with Trump's sex life and his genitalia in particular.
You never see a conservative talking about Trump's dick!
The Big Giant Head.
I had a liberal ask about mine a few times here on NT. Kind of revolting.
It takes a sick fuck to obsess about a politician's penis.
Or a really bad case of penis envy!
Oops, sorry, I repeated myself!
Biden tried to sniff my hair once .... problem is what I have left is high and tight.
DOH!
That.
It would explain their obsession with him.
LMAO!
It’s not true but it’s a great sea story
Just like his 'presidency' and criminal enterprise of an administration and these investigations of the investigators.
Like bbl-1 said, is it time now for Durham to investigate the jury? LOL!
And the typist, the janitor, Gandi, Socrates, Julia Childs (she was a spy, you know). One must be thorough when covering up cow manure with horse manure.
Barr wants to avoid prison and assignation by Trumpers whose vision of reality is muddied by REALITY!
Durham as Special Council has only one duty. To shield Trump.
Can you answer the following?
Did Sussman tell the FBI he was not representing a client?
Was that true?
Did Sussman's firm charge Hillary's campaign for time spent at the FBI pushing crap?
Did Sussman's firm charge Hillary's campaign for a flash drive to transmit info to the FBI?
A better question is "Does the Sussman non-disclosure matter more than a 'grave counterintelligence threat'?". The investigation was not based on Sussman, the connections to Russian operatives were real, the investigation into Trumps campaign was warranted as a Republican led Senate investigation concluded. Those are the facts, anyone without their head shoved up Trumps ass are scratching theirs wondering why the fuck the supposed Sussman lie matters at all. It's rather sad to watch such rabid foam at the mouth Hillary haters get themselves so worked up over such a pointless insignificant issue while they ignore the mountains of corruption dripping out of their own cesspool of a political party. They clearly are desperate when they cling to a supposed lie by their opponents while ignoring the thousands of lies that their dear Leader was spouting daily. Right wing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.
Man, that's a whole lot of words to just say "Uh-uh!".
Way to dodge the question I asked, though!
The reply to the question you asked is the court and the jury rejected the partisan prosecutors claims. But why would anyone with more than half a brain care about Sussman or his supposed "lie"? We know that the investigation was not predicated on Sussman's information to the FBI and the investigation was warranted. The only ones clinging to this dead horse are clearly either monumental morons, desperate partisans or dealing with severe chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
Why can't the left can't answer simple "Yes" and "No" questions. Just had another one in another article waste 3 hours just to say "No"
That doesn't answer my questions--why would anyone think it did????????
FFS, do you even have a clue what he was on trial FOR?????
Stop spinning and wandering off track and simply answer a question--for once--with a straight-forward answer.
Many can't dazzle us with brilliance and are simply reduced to attempts at baffling us with bullshit,
All they have is bullshit, so they throw it out there and grin and stand proud like they just tied their own shoes for the first time.
Agh, re-litigating a trial from the couch without a law degree is always electrifying, like football for armchair quarterbacks who never played the game.
Does that mean answering a question that you agree with, not one you do not?
Actually most “special councils” have but one purpose. To deflect useful idiots from the fact that most politicians would be in jail if held to the same standards as they hold us to.
Follow the money is all you need to do. At least Trump was already rich. How much wealth and how many mansions did the Obamas and Clinton’s parlay their “civil service” into? How many mansions does Dubya have? Only one that I know of and he already owned it.
Use your heads people. Democrats like them are punking your ass.
Bigly.
Imagine a Democratic candidate for President of the United States of America had been trying to secure a secret deal with Vladimir Putin to build a great big luxury tower right next to the Kremlin that would personally profit them billions of dollars and their supporters were trying to pass it off as totally okay. Yeah, just imagine that...
You STILL can't say what is wrong with it.
Were you pissed when McDonald's opened in Russia?
Did you become unhinged and rant endlessly on and on and on about something perfectly legal?
How much real estate DOES Trump occupy in your head anyways?
I imagine that would make a nice work of fiction since that is all it is.
[Deleted]
Ouch, I'll bet that hurts like a snowplow running over one's foot.
The purpose of each Special Council is spelled out in detail, and never requires them to absolve the guilty parted to be appeased, that the masses of asses might continue to
wallow in their fantasy that they alone are the only innocents in a case they barely understand.
Oh, we who hold grudges seed the wind with hatred, anger, and fear.
Sparty On, you for interrupting for the rest of us. We are stunned by your conclusions, as stunned as if hit by a stun gun.
Shocking ..... I do hope all y’all sensitivities aren’t too damaged but no worries. The keepers here watch over their downtrodden and apply the “salve” liberally to protect their oppressed many.
So fear not ye oppressed proletarian ......
Both the Clintons and the Obamas released their taxes from years prior to their elections. They then submitted financials for the 8 years they were in office.
We STILL haven't seen Trump's tax returns and they are looking into his financials as we speak.
Maybe you should practice what you preach.
And you STILL don't have any legitimate reason to look at tax returns other than your own.
I always thought that was done to be transparent and maybe stop conflicts of interest.
No one seems to care anymore.
Biden released 22 years of his taxes.
People can choose to release personal information if they want.
Still no legitimate reason to see Trump's returns.
I think they all should. Especially when writing things like tax law.
Wonder how many of those returns he plagiarized or lied about?
Great examples there Dulay - Clinton and Obama - the two biggest shylocks to ever hold the office of President - IMHO.
BTFW - "Legally", Trump does not have to "release" his tax returns - his choice, not yours.
They aren't MY examples 1st, they are Sparty's, I merely replied to his. Try to keep up.
Strawman.
One more and you're out.
They are great examples First.
Trump was already rich. The Clintons were in the poor house when they left the White House according to them. Now look at their net worth.
The Obama’s seem to be doing pretty well with several mansions to choose from. Good work if you can get it.
Follow the money.
That story is yet to be told. All it takes is one look at his POS son to see that. It’s amusing watching the useful idiots on the left give him a free pass after they trashed Trumps kids non stop for five years.
Well, “amusing” isn’t the best word to describe that I guess.
There are plenty of reasons why the Federal government is looking into "Dirty Diaper Don's" Tax Returns.
He is a TRAITOR, puppet of Putin, a massive criminal and a dangerous threat to the world.
We all have opinions. Some have them based on facts.
Anger, prejudice, unrelenting hate are not the building boxes of communication.
Continuing to defend Trump is akin to promoting Hitler as a religious leader because he said that he is a Christian.
Sound familiar?
Nope, not even remotely.
Clearly we inhabit different plains of existence.
Absolutely no evidence to this day, of Russian "interference" in the election.....or Putin-Trump collusion
Hacking and releasing emails was quite a thing.
I loved Gullivers Island. It, for me, was fun, entertaining and a wonderful break from reality. It should have been called, Gilligan's Island. He was the star.
The ignorance is galactic in that comment.
And also 'Putinesque'.
Dulay, that is a pithy, galactic statement. Brillant!
Funny - Mueller and friends said different - but - hey - why tell the truth, eh?
I am not certain what published "Mueller Report" you are referring.
The one put out by Mad Magazine and endorsed by Putin is propaganda, not factual.
Instead, it is fiction.
When did they opine differently on Greg's comment 1st?
Link?
The lie was and IS that Trump colluded with Russia.
Do try to keep abreast of the facts.
I challenge you to answer the questions I asked above.
So far NO ONE has had the balls to even ATTEMPT an answer on this thread OR the others I have asked on.
You keep saying that, and keep ignoring the whole Trump Tower Russian meeting. Just because he didn't get what he wanted, did mean he didn't collude to try.
Sorry the facts don't support your fantasy.
I see you can't answer my questions any better than the rest of the bunch
No, the story was "Is Trump colluding with Russia?". That was the story the media was selling. Then, after a Republican led senate investigation, they found that the investigation into the Trump campaign Russia connections was warranted. Whether or not they found him guilty of criminal conspiracy is immaterial. They did find nearly a dozen of his campaign staff and campaign manager guilty of multiple crimes including lying to the FBI and congress and found the manager was a "grave counterintelligence threat" due to his close connections to a Russian operative and his willingness to share sensitive campaign data, but right wing conservatives conveniently ignore all that. Those are facts they don't want to admit or accept, so they have to just continue repeating their room temp IQ mantra of "No collusion!, No collusion! No collusion!" like the mindless conservative zombie drones they are.
Bullshit.
The story was Trump was colluding with Russia--pushed by a biased media and fools in the Hillary campaign, as described at trial.
And a whole bunch of suckers on the left fell for it.
You should know.
Please do link proof of an 'msm' headline that declares Trump colluded with Russia. Then you'll want to send it to your dear Leader so he can sue the pants off the news organization that made such a declaration.
And don't bother linking the many speculative news articles that asked the question "Is trump colluding with Russia?" or any of the news articles pointing out the many, many, many proven links between Trump campaign staff and Russian operatives because, again, none are making a claim in print saying that "Trump was colluding with Russia" as you falsely claim.
Was there a news feeding frenzy around the story? Of course there was, which is perfectly reasonable given the circumstances and the numerous criminals Trump had surrounding him in his campaign and legal team and their eventual admissions of numerous links to Russian operatives as well as clandestine meetings at Trump tower with Russians offering dirt on the Clinton campaign. Did any major news outlet proclaim Trump was colluding with Russia and claimed they had evidence of criminal conspiracy? Of course not, that's all in the minds of weak conservative sycophants fantasizing about being the victims of the liberal progressive 'msm' and Democrats.
Remember when Trump and Trump businesses lost their ability to secure financing through US banks in the mid 2000's?
And the Trump kids said they didn't need the US banks because they were getting all the money they needed from Russia?
Well. Were the Trump kids lying?
Are you fucking serious?
Have you been living off-grid for a few years or something?
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17438386
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-russia...
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794...
I can certainly supply more, but everyone can see I made my point.
And yet, you can't even honestly answer a few questions about Sussman, and apparently don't even know what he was charged with.
Get outta here!
Apparently you may have some trouble with reading comprehension, since not a single one of those links does what you claim. Either that or you didn't bother reading your links. Here's from the first link:
"But roughly speaking, the question is whether the campaign got involved with Russian agents who committed computer crimes to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election. The verdict on this is unclear."
So is that "Trump was colluding with Russia" or is it "Did Trump collude with Russia?"...
Your second link comes back "Sorry, we can’t seem to find the page you’re looking for."
Your third link goes to "404 Page Not Found".
Your fourth link goes to a story about baby formula shortages.
It's okay to admit that you're very very wrong, but clearly that kind of honesty is rare on the right.
So try again if you like, but you have not provided a single link to any 'msm' story that claimed Trump colluded with Russia. Are there lots of stories about Russian connections and even statements like "there is certainly plenty of evidence pointing toward collusion; what you would call “probable cause” in a legal context". Yes, there were many stories like that. But as your link points out the facts they were gathering and presenting were "what a journalist might simply consider reason to continue investigating the story". They had not made an accusation.
Perhaps a better way to explain it for those with room temp IQ would be showing them the difference between accusing someone of rape and presenting evidence and asking questions about someone you think might have raped. If the news story proclaims "Trump raped 13 year old girl while hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein" then they are guilty of libel unless they can prove in a court of law that Trump did in fact rape a 13 year old while hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein. If the news story asks the question "Are the rape allegations from a 13 year old who claims Trump raped here in the 1990's while with Jeffrey Epstein true? There is some evidence that supports her claims". That is not making a claim but presenting the woman's rape allegations and the facts surrounding it and Trump would have a hard time suing them for libel.
There is a HUGE legal difference between a news organization making a claim that someone did something and a story that points out the evidence or facts in a case that lead their reader to the conclusion that a person did something.
So you're clearly unable to back up your spurious statement and have tried to fling some crap at the wall to see if it will stick, but no one with more than half a brain would agree with your hilariously flawed bogus claim.
Go parse words and pretend stuff didn't happen with someone else.
[Deleted]
There are some that are afflicted with 'The Trump Derangement Syndrome' which indicates those afflicted are adoring of him and believe everything he says as truer than gospel.
There are no lengths the 'TDS'ers will not go to in order to defend any and every thing to assure 'The Mar-a-Lago Man' remains on the pedestal even as a used piece of toilet paper stubbornly clings to it's base.
Buzz off.
You do not have to be so goddamn noxious...
What does this mean?
Trump on July 27, 2016:
“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That will be next. Yes, sir.”
Immediately after that request:
Or as Jesus once said:
'Ask and You Shall Receive'
Buzz off.
Don't you have some tall tales to tell about investigations that came up empty?
Testy, is always a clue to "gotcha"!
It means what it means. Sometimes we must use our visual ability to interpret a communication.
Cave drawings may have been superior to vocalization.
Humans have many methods available to them to communicate:
Vocalization
Silence
Gestures
Intuition
Instincts
Art
Dance
Drama
Prayer. etc.
This is the story of their lives.
"The Truth Will Set Your Free", so sayeth the wise man. But, only if you seek it.
A predisposed mindset is not a good starting point.
Oh, and by the way, the Earth is not flat.
Brilliantly crafted, a touch of wit and a devastating blow to those who bury their head in a cesspool of known lies, deception, and obvious untruths.
I hope you will watch the June 9th presentation where facts are on display, not bull chips.
Work Shall Set You Free
So said a government that lies.
I don’t know. Hard work worked pretty well for me. As well as many other hard workers I know.
Slackers looking for a hand out? Not so much.
Arbeit macht frei
Lol .... seriously?
Are you really trying to draw a comparison there?
Ridiculous!
Thank you, Greg Jones, for that clarification. Your comments are always syndic, consistent and right, if one ignores the facts.
I am relieved to hear that. So many lawyers, FBI Agents, Intelligence Officers, CIA Operatives in numerous countries and investigators have come to another conclusion.
I may now breathe safely knowing that you have this one.
Is telling the truth always a lie?
When I was as a child I spoke as a child. But, when I became an adult, I speak, as a "Know It All," because I, alone, know it all.
Sorry, got to go, "Jeopardy" is calling.
They constantly harass me with invitations to appear on that platform. Howsomever, if I concede, due to conceit, I will tell the world what I know, and, they do not know, then they will know it, and I will be just
another "Nodar."