Durham evidence creates timeline of relentless Democrat effort to sell Russia collusion hoax | Just The News
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 years ago • 193 commentsBy: John Solomon (Just The News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As the trial for former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann draws closer, Special Counsel John Durham is painting a picture of a relentless effort by Democrat operatives to sell the Russia collusion narrative across the U.S. government from the FBI to the State Department.
Essentially, Hillary Clinton operatives flooded the zone in the summer and fall of 2016, hoping multiple Trump collusion allegations circulating inside the government agencies might prompt an investigation and media interest.
For the first time this week, Durham called it a "joint venture" and a conspiracy to shop unproven Trump dirt.
In the case of Sussmann, Durham alleges that effort involved deceit by lying to the FBI that he did not have a client when he presented (since-discredited) evidence to the FBI that Donald Trump had a secret computer back channel at the Alfa Bank in Moscow to talk with the Kremlin.
In fact, Sussmann was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a tech executive named Rodney Jaffe who was aligned with the campaign when he approached the FBI in September 2016 and made the anti-Trump allegations, Durham's team alleges.
A few months later, prosecutors say, Sussmann was still representing the tech executive when he approached the CIA in February 2017 to get the spy agency involved and again claimed he wasn't representing a client's interest.
On Monday, Durham showed the strength of his evidence of Sussmann's alleged lie: He offered the handwritten notes of two senior FBI officials who recorded that the Clinton lawyer had said he was not acting on behalf of a client when he reported the Trump dirt.
"Said not doing this for any client," then-Assistant FBI Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap wrote in his notes, recording what Sussmann had told him. A deputy general counsel wrote a similar notation.
Durham also produced a text message Sussmann sent then-FBI General Counsel James Baker making the claim in his own words.
"Jim - it's Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss," he texted Baker on Sept. 18, 2016, according to the new court filing. "Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I'm coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks."
In his latest court filings, Durham repeatedly called Sussmann's comments a "lie" that had consequences, concealing from the FBI that the origins of the Trump dirt came from his rival's campaign, Hillary Clinton.
"The aforementioned communications demonstrate the materiality of the defendant's lie insofar as they reveal the political origins and purposes for this work," the prosecutor wrote. "And those political origins are especially probative here because they provided a motive for the defendant to conceal his clients' involvement in these matters."
He also noted that in a House Intelligence Committee deposition taken by investigator Kash Patel, Sussman gave a different account, admitting he did in fact approach the FBI on behalf of a client.
Former Rep. Devin Nunes, who led the House Intelligence Committee when it unraveled the false Russia collusion narrative, said Durham has now put on the public record what many Americans have suspected for a long time.
"We've got millions of Americans who understand the facts here, they understand that Donald Trump and the whole Republican Party was framed, and quite frankly, the people who voted for Donald Trump and voted for the Republicans were framed," he said.
Nunes said the false Russia collusion narrative weaved by Team Clinton ended up having consequences all the way to the current Russia invasion of Ukraine.
"Because of all of this crap that happened during the Trump administration, the United States of America couldn't have a real foreign policy and deal with characters like Putin in kind of a normal way," he said.
Sussmann's lawyers clearly plan to challenge the evidence, questioning markings on the notes and the possibility some of the evidence is protected by attorney-client privilege. But they also have shown their hand for the trial should they lose those arguments: They will try to argue the lie wasn't material and didn't affect the FBI's decision-making.
The defense also signaled in their most recent court filings that they are going to fight to keep mention of Christopher Steele's dossier — the other Clinton effort to falsely tie Trump to Russia collusion — out of the trial and away from jurors. They argued the Steele dossier would be inflammatory and prejudicial, even though it too was funded by the Clinton campaign and handled by Sussmann's law firm.
"Any modicum of relevance would be so substantially outweighed by risk of confusion, delay, waste, and unfair prejudice as to require this evidence be precluded," wrote Sussmann's attorneys.
And that is where Durham's new declaration of a conspiracy will be focused, arguing the Steele dossier and Sussmann's approaches were a "joint venture" designed to flood government agencies with information — later proven false or flawed — to make it look like Trump was conspiring with Russia.
Durham also dropped new hints this week that Sussmann and the researchers working with him had reason to suspect the Alpha Bank allegations might not be true or at least suspect. Emails talked about them being a "red herring" or suggested that all that could be drawn from the data was "an inference."
One researcher offered this candid warning about the computer data: "We don't see the money flow, and we don't see the content of some message saying 'send me the money here' etc.," Durham wrote.
Over the last several months, Durham's court filings — as well as now public government documents — lay out a timetable of key events in what he believes adds up to a conspiracy. Here it is:
July 5, 2016: The same day that the FBI clears Hillary Clinton of criminality in the mishandling of classified emails on her hard drive, Steele walks into an FBI agent he knows in London and delivers his first version of the dossier alleging collusion between Trump and the Kremlin. The field office doesn't act on it immediatetely.
Month of July 2016: A group of computer executives aligned with Clnton and working with Sussmann's law firm begin looking for evidence in Internet domain name service logs to tie Trump to Russia, eventually coming up with the Alfa Bank theory. "Tech Executive-1 tasked these researchers to mine Internet data to establish 'an inference' and 'narrative' tying then-candidate Trump to Russia," Durham wrote in Monday's court filing. "In doing so, Tech Executive-1 indicated that he was seeking to please certain 'VIPs,' referring to individuals at Law Firm-1 and the Clinton Campaign."
July 26, 2016: CIA Director John Brennan tells President Barack Obama about intelligence that Hillary Clinton has personally approved a plan "from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services" in the election. That briefing is captured in Brennan's handwritten notes.
July 30-31, 2016: Frustrated by inaction by the FBI in London, Steele travels to Washington to meet his friend, senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, to relay his research on Trump. Ohr takes the information directly to FBI headquarters and the bureau's senior leadership, where Steele is eventually brought on as a confidential informant.
July 31, 2016: FBI formally opens the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into alleged Russia-Trump collusion.
Sept. 7, 2016: CIA sends FBI Director James Comey and others the same warning it gave Obama, namely that Clinton has approved a plan to tie Trump to Russia to distract from her email scandal.
Sept. 15, 2016: Another lawyer at Sussmann's firm briefs the Clinton campaign on the Russia collusion research and efforts to plant a story in the media leaking some of the findings.
Sept. 19, 2016: Sussmann brings the Alpha Bank angle of Russia collusion to the FBI through Baker. The FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Team, on the same day, gets six of Steele's memos from the dossier and asks for permission to seek a FISA warrant.
Sept. 21, 2016: FBI lawyers urged Crossfire Hurricane to refocus the FISA on Carter Page predominantly and not fellow Trump adviser George Papadopolous, according to the inspector general.
Sept. 23, 2016: First information leaked from Clinton campaign's Russia research appears in Yahoo News, including information gleaned from Steele.
Oct. 13, 2016: Steele breaks FBI protocol and goes to the State Department, meeting with senior official Kathleen Kavalec, where the former MI6 agent working for the Clinton campaign briefs officials on his dossier and the Alpha Bank allegations and admits he's also talking to major news media.
Oct. 21, 2016: FBI secures first FISA warrant targeting former Trump adviser Carter Page in Russia probe.
Oct. 31, 2016: The first news story leaks about the Alpha Bank allegations, and Hillary Clinton calls attention to it as well as putting out a statement by her adviser Jake Sullivan, now President Biden's national security adviser. "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank," Clinton tweeted. Sullivan boasted the allegations in the article "could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow[,] that "[t]his secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia[,]" and that "[w]e can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia."
Nov. 8, 2017: Donald Trump wins the election.
Feb 9, 2017: Sussmann takes Alfa Bank allegations and new information to the CIA, again denying he is acting on behalf of a client.
Tags
Who is online
487 visitors
That's it.....the timeline of events that led to the greatest hoax in American history!
Please note: The picture I selected is not part of the article I seeded. I don't want to be falsely accused of plagiarism.
The greatest hoax being the Durham investigation? Truer words have never been spoken.
You made that a question. You might get a majority to go along here, but not out where the American people exist. How did Obama's Reverend say it? "The chickens have come home to roost!"
Oh btw, here is the necessary link:
Here is some more info..........
And the necessary link.
Thank you Sir.
The truth is that it can be found many places, but I'm not going to run around for them.
Are our tax dollars paying for his (how many years now?) long investigation with absolutely nothing to be found? What a scam! A hoax indeed!
The Washington Examiner?
Are you confusing this with the Mueller investigation? Sure looks like it. Only things that were found had NOTHING to do with the reason for it in the first place.
You mean the Russian Collusion investigation lead by Mueller and staffed by Clinton and Obama sycophants?
We couldn't agree more.
And you require what?
The New York Times?
LOL! I'm not the confused one here.
Fair enough. What are we discussing?
Do you ever tire of repeating Russian propaganda?
Then Democrats and Hillary have nothing to worry about, so why all the whining about it?
Plus we're not the ones incessantly whining about it either!
Maybe not incessantly, but DAMN sure are whining now!
We're still waiting on those indictments on the entire Obama administration!
Fantastic for you!
BTFW, that isn't the topic, so I suppose this is your version of projection, denial and deflection.
Durham Evidence Creates Timeline Of Relentless Democrat Effort To Sell Russia Collusion Hoax | Just The News
This . . . again? How many times are we going to get these 'bombshells'?
How many years of investigations with absolutely nothing to show for it?
How embarrassing!
It's not a bombshell, it's the timeline ... of a great lie!
Naw, that's what the Durham 'investigation' is.
Notice you can't provide anything to back up your claim...
True enough--Democrats and Hillary SHOULD be embarrassed, but I doubt they have the intestinal fortitude to even recognize their screw-up.
Says someone who never provides proof of anything. I always provide proof where necessary.
Plus, I'm/we're not the embarrassed ones despite what some of the members of my fan club have been saying.
I specifically stated Democrats and Hillary should be embarrassed.
There is a huge difference between what they do and what they should be--which is embarrassed.
Caught with their grimy little fingers in the cookie jar!
And their useless, idiotic sycophants lap it up and ask for seconds!
See 1.3.5
Why are you telling yourself to read what you should remember you posted less than 10 minutes ago?
Wow.
What a complete and utter shock.
So instead of backing up your claim you go after me. Because that's what adults do.
Believe me, you are not that important.
That's' Biden's voter base.
I wasn't talking about you as a member of my fan club. Although I didn't 'go after you'. That's your MO.
“Because that's what adults do.”
Says the ‘let’s go brandon’ flag flyer.
I noticed how NONE of them have made an attempt to disprove any of the content. Straight to attacking the source and seeder and the normal feeble attempts to deflect. The normal bullshit from the normal people.
Projection, denial and deflection?
LOL.
wasn't talking about you as a member of my fan club.
Again, you're not that important.
So asking you to back up one of your many senseless claims is an "attack"? That's some pretty thin skin you have there.
You're the one who is always in attack mode. I'm not the thin skinned one here.
You're not at all important.
They say that so often makes me wonder if they really aren't Russian Bots.
For some reason when they start with that Doofy from the Scream movie comes to mind.
[deleted]
“KMT.”
…adulting is tough, no?
Speaking of triggered eh?
Remember how loud they were screaming after just 1 year of the Mueller investigation? Claiming that it was nothing but a witch hunt and should be stopped because it had gone on too long, despite the indictments being handed out.
And what were those indictments for?
Go take your Russian propaganda elsewhere.
They're still screaming to this day
And have you noticed that nothing Durham has done has even tried to invalidate facts of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians?
Nailed him............again LOL
What facts? How can you invalidate something that isn't there? Strange..............
Never did . . . . . . never will
Wait, you mean Jr never agreed to a meeting with the Russians at Trump tower to get dirt on Hillary? Are you trying to claim that never happened, despite Trump AND Jr admitting to it?
You see that's the trouble with Russian propaganda, it assumes that you ignore the facts around you.
It's funny the way the usual people are attacking you and the source of the article instead of providing anything to disprove it.
I notice they do the attacking and then try to spin it like they are the victims. Funny stuff.
The key word would be "try". They aren't victims of a damn thing.
The greatest hoax in American history was that Donald Trump was fit to hold office.
Here's a date for you, prior to any of the dates on your list - June 9th , 2016, Trump's campaign leadership meets at Trump Tower with Russian agents with the expectation that they are going to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton provided by the Russian government.
How many years did Trump get for that "crime?"
The same amount that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok , James Brennan, etc, are going to get.
You seed articles from unreliable web sites Vic. John Solomon is a fake news guy all the way.
As long as the site is allowed by our leftist media rating organization it is allowed. Beyond that, news that is generally known everywhere, should be accepted without complaint.
Can't discuss the topic, so you go after the author or source????
The wikipedia page on John Solomon is filled with complaints about his unethical reporting.
You keep going back to him like he is Edward R. Murrow. Its pitiful.
When the source is unreliable the source is part of the topic.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger penned a blog post last week declaring that the site is “badly biased,” “no longer has an effective neutrality policy” and clearly favors lefty politics.
Sanger – who is no longer with involved with Wikipedia – wrote that it has long forgotten its original policy of aiming to present information from a neutral point of view, and nowadays the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia “can be counted on” to cover politics with a liberal point of view.
When one has no argument the source becomes the topic.
You know any dumbass can update that site right? A bunch of TDS driven lunatics posting updates does not equal facts. Also, keep watching- because dumbass Biden bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired that was investigating the company his son was working for. Biden also had meetings with a company CEO; despite "Not knowing anything; or being involved with" his sons business dealings.
What is pitiful is the left defending their dog shit president no matter how much evidence is provided. Maybe a special prosecutor or two and a couple of impeachments after midterms; will finally get it to sink in.
Vic, here is how you avoid plagiarism. You need to do two (2) things. Not just one, two.
1. Enclose the quoted words in quotation marks or use blockquote. (This identifies the text as a quote)
2. Cite the author of the quoted words (ideally with a link)
A link alone is insufficient.
Here is an example:
Ok
Timelines... we don't need no stinking timelines.....
Strange thing is that HRC could have won in 2016 if, IMO, she had not skipped over those states she did. IMO she spent too much time with the Democratic "elites" and raising money and missed out on visiting some states. If I remember correctly, didn't she never visit Wisconsin? She lost really by three states and the vote totals in those states was very low, had she spent more time campaigning in those states the end result could have been different. It seems that she believed the line that it was her time to win.
So this hoax really wasn't necessary in the first place. Just 'dirty tricks' because that's how the game is played I guess.
There is no hoax. Trump was ready willing and able to collude with the Russians in 2016.
John - willing and doing are two different things. Trump "may have been" willing, but HRC was "willing to do and did".
YUGE difference.
If Sussmann is found guilty I believe you will need to change your tune here because he will be found guilty of propagating this hoax.
But nothing to say on the rest of my comment? All you can do is continue to attack Trump? Why is that John?
Of course there was a hoax. The Steele Dossier was a fraud bought and paid for by the Democrats and used by Trump's enemies to justify miring his Presidency in endless investigations and even to spy on innocent Americans. Your belief that Trump was "ready willing and able" to collude doesn't justify making up allegations.
You sound like that police commander in Chicago who tortured suspects for false confessions. They were guilty of something, so making up evidence was "justified."
The hoax wasn't the one y'all are saying it was.
But there is zero proof this occurred. It was the mother of all hoaxes and Democrat heads should roll.
That attacking Trump and racism seems to be what keeps him alive.
So prove it wrong or shut up already.
And yet, after 5 years of investigating there is no evidence of it. But here you and a few others are blathering on and on about it.
John.....do you read minds?
She does get a lot of the blame. I suppose from her perspective she got sandbagged by her own party. In 2008 she had plenty of support going in, but as soon as Barack Obama climbed in, the tingling began and he quickly got all of the attention. In 2016, she had trouble beating Bernie Sanders, an old Socialist, because the democratic party had moved so far left. When she finally got the nomination she faced a candidate that resonated with average Americans.
Agreed. My take has always been that Trump got the votes he did in 2016 because people were just tired of the same old same old coming out of Washington. It didn't matter who was elected or what party was in charge, the end result was always the same in that it was politics as usual and very little for the common person. Trump was not a politician and I believe that gave him the advantage he had.
But I've always felt that she lost the election more than Trump won it as she spent too much time hobnobbing with the rich and power on the coasts and seemingly ignoring the middle of the country. IMO she believed that it was her turn and that she would win no matter what she did.
On the day Trump won the election in 2016, he was already a KNOWN pathological liar, crook, bigot ,moron ,and cheat.
It is disgusting that American people were willing to overlook the mountains of bad behavior by Trump because they were "tired" .
You could be right on that, though I can't go along. At least everything you said is based on reasonable conclusions. There is a lot to look at in every election since 2012. They have all involved a divided nation and heavy handed participation by the media with the last involving so much of the voting being done by mail-in-ballots.
The nicest thing I can say is that we live in interesting times.
Show your evidence that mail in balloting resulted in voter fraud.
Not your wish list, evidence.
Not possible. There is no proof whatsoever.
it would be nice if you didn't cherry pick your cut & paste and actually discuss what was written. Everybody on this board knows how you feel about Trump, there are probably monks up in the Himalayas who know how you feel about Trump. But care to comment on what was actually said? ie, that people were "tired' of the same old crap coming out of Washington and it didn't matter which party was in charge because it was the same crap?
Or should we just mark you down as another 'Trump was unfit to hold office' type reply and move on?
Show your evidence that mail in balloting resulted in voter fraud.
Democrats are too good at it to leave evidence. So good that it’s like it didn’t even happen at all.
I don't see where he claimed it did? Freudian slip there JR?
This is just your intentionally misinformed opinion. By all accounts, the same could be said about both Bill and Hillary. But Trump wasn't elected because of his pleasing personality.
You just described Hillary Clinton; but you left off "pathological jackass who was hated more than Trump."
She was hated more than Trump! She ran a worse campaign than Trump! Worst of all she lost to Trump! The TDS driven left will never get over that.
Many states set up mail ballot systems that were not secure. For documented facts and proof, read "Rigged" by Mollie Hemingway.
I wouldn't go to any alt-right source for documented facts and proof. Not possible.
How about Brookings?
According to them California as an example sent mail-in ballots to all voters. No special instructions or handling, just everybody gets a ballot.
Give us a list of people who voted but were not eligible to vote. Whether you or Mollie Hemingway believe that ballot systems were not secure, is rank speculation, not evidence.
Exactly! Thank you!
How about it?
Well I gave you another source there for information on how the mail-in ballots and elections were handled for each state by a non-right wing outfit. Will you go there to look at facts?
The simple fact is that some states did not even follow their own laws, instead citing the Covid pandemic as the reason why voting rules (please note I said rules and not laws) were changed for the 2020 election. IMO some of these changes were not properly set up and as such did not provide a secure method of collecting the mail-in ballots. I'm not saying there was fraud but I am saying that some of the changes were not set up to allow for the best security to reduce potential fraud.
Your citation says that the best and most secure way to vote was by mail during a pandemic.
Plus, that's all your opinion anyway.
Bullshit... I even point out where I put in my opinion. In case you can't see it...
FACT
OPINION
I changed my comment so your bullshit comment is bullshit.
"The simple fact is that some states did not even follow their own laws, instead citing the Covid pandemic as the reason why voting rules (please note I said rules and not laws) were changed for the 2020 election."
THAT'S NOT A FACT. Simple or otherwise.
Nice edit..
And I do agree with that statement, the best way to vote during a pandemic was to vote by mail. And I don't have any problems with mail-in ballots, I wish every state would set up and allow for this. Where I do object is how some states went around their own laws and/or state constitutions to set up mail-in voting without setting up the advance precautions to insure a secure ballot.
Are you seriously trying to claim that NO voting rules were changed because of the pandemic?
Really want to go there?
LMAO!
So your claim is that no voting rules were changed in the 2020 election due to the pandemic? Is that truly what you are saying?
Then in the spirit of your post of 1.3.5 I ask you to provide proof of your statement.
No need to be so snippy about it. We're allowed to edit our comments.
Again, you have no proof that any states 'went around their own laws and/or state constitutions without setting up the advance precautions to insure a secure ballot.'
What are those 'advance precautions' by the way?
The argument (to use the word loosely) is the equivalent of saying that because someone left their front door open when they went out to dinner, that is proof that their house was robbed while they were gone.
It is no such thing. And it is tragic for our country that so many people fell for Trumps lies. A survey from a few months ago showed that only 20% of Republicans believe Biden won the election.
Some are listed in the Brookings link at 3.2.13. Oh wait. You don't do link reading. Carry on
I know we're allowed to edit our comments, that's why I said 'nice edit' because it was a nice change from what you had initially posted. Sorry that you read that as snippy, that's not how it was intended.
In Arizona we must show proof of our identity when we register for the mail-in ballot. After that my signature is accepted as proof I have cast my ballot. As California for example changed their process to send ballots to all registered voters for the 2020 elections without an initial request it is quite obvious that California did not set up in advance to fully identify the voter was fully eligible.
No JR, that's not my argument at all. My statement below is what my argument is about.
So again, you only have the alleged 'proof' for Arizona but no other states, so again, your opinion, NOT FACT. How is it quite obvious in California? Opinion. Not fact.
No, you did not read and understand what I stated. I stated what the process for mail-in ballots in Arizona are. That's FACT.
Then I stated, as per the Brookings Institute link, what California did with mail-in ballots for the 2020 election. Again, that's FACT.
You can continue to deny it but so far you have not shown any evidence that what you are saying is correct so it must be only your OPINION.
Whatever - your opinion really doesn't matter to me so I'm moving on now. All you've provided is opinion. No facts.
"Some are listed in the Brookings link at 3.2.13. Oh wait. You don't do link reading. Carry on"
Not if you provide them. I'm sure anything you provided wouldn't be trustworthy.
I looked at snuffy's link and it is left leaning so I support the Brookings Institute.
Snuffy must also .
Then why were you arguing with him?
So what?
Trump has alleged, non stop, for 17 months in a row now, that the election was stolen from him. The fact that people like you believe the election process was not secure enough is not even remotely evidence that Trump was cheated.
Please point out where Snuffy made that argument. What post is it in?
Bravo.... Not many could take a simple question about the 2020 elections and what some states did which may or may not impact on the security of the ballots and turn it into a hit on Trump.
Let me make it clear in case it's not. I DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT TRUMP ANYMORE... HE'S NOT PART OF MY DISCUSSION. I WISH HE WOULD JUST GO AWAY. I DO NOT WANT HIM TO RUN IN 2024 BUT THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO AS A SINGLE PERSON TO PREVENT HIM FROM THROWING HIS HAT INTO THE RING SO ALL I CAN DO IS IGNORE HIM NOW.
And go back and re-read my posts. I even stated that I was not saying there was any voter fraud, just that the changes some states made to their process did not allow them time to set up a secure system to insure ballot integrity.
That IS Snuffy's link in 3.2.13, and you have done nothing but argue about it.
Jim just pointed you TO Snuffy's link because he rightfully assumed you DON'T READ LINKS, as you have claimed over and over again here.
It is always easier to invent things they wanted you to say so they can argue their inventions instead of what you actually stated. Tried and true method I have witnessed many times, usually from a handful of posters.
Exactly! Thanks John!
It's rather unfortunate. Rather than use this forum in an attempt to bridge the divide that exists between people by having actual discussions all that some can do is continue to push their talking points and force the divide even wider. That's why I hesitate to post to this site, it's gone so far downhill that it's really not worth my time most days..
Except it's not who you are referring to that is making this site go downhill.
Did you type that with a straight face?
I believe you have already said that you would vote for Trump in 2024 if the Democratic candidate doesnt meet your approval. You know what? The Democratic candidate in 2024 is not going to meet your approval.
Why do you insist on changing the topic?
Get lost.
If it would turn out to be someone reasonable like Tulsi Gabbard, I would definitely consider it.
No, don't think I will.
Instead, I'll keep asking the tough questions for you to ignore and avoid.
What I said was that I would vote for Trump over Biden or Harris. However I do not believe that Biden will be running in 2024 regardless of what he says today, he has to say today that he is running re-election. If he were to say anything else he immediately becomes a lame duck president and loses too much political power to do much of anything. And I do not believe there is any way that Harris can win the nomination in 2024, she's shown that she really has no business being in politics.
This still does not invalidate my statement in 3.2.26. I do not want Trump to run again.
As we do not know who the Democratic candidate will be this is way to pre-mature to state any position.
What business does Trump have being in politics?
After his actions since the last election? None. Still doesn't change what I wrote but hey... way to keep hammering at Trump while ignoring the entire system.
Just so you know, it is possible to talk about one politician without having to include another person...
So you're going to vote for Trump, perhaps, even though he has no business being in politics? Good to know.
If the option is Trump or Biden, then fuck yes I will hold my nose and vote for Trump. But as that election is over 2 years from now which is an eternity in politics who knows what will happen then. As I said I do not think that Biden will run for re-election so then the option is different. Do you understand the difference here? Or is all you can see is that I have a chance I will vote for Trump...
“What business does Trump have being in politics? “
It has always been business for trump.
He ascended to the presidency to his surprise and failed spectacularly in his attempt to treat the responsibilities the office demanded to his business model…deny any wrongdoing then sue accordingly.
Neither does Kamala. Together with Joe, they are ruining our great country
Tough questions.
yep!
The very same ones which go unanswered and ignored.
Can YOU answer them?
He didn't say "fraud" - gads John - why do you keep adding things not even pertinent to the discussion?
Simply because it is easier--FAR easier--to invent things and then argue them than to actually debate someone based solely on facts and what they claim.
He is an American Citizen
He wants to be
People voted for him
It can get exhausting trying to keep up with the deflection between topics from some people. The sad part is they seem proud of themselves when they do it.
Voter fraud? How about benefiting democrats?
"They found that in presidential and midterm general elections between 1996 and 2018, switching to all-mail voting increased the percentage of residents who voted by 1.8% to 2.9%, they report today in Science Advances . When it came to the Democratic share of the vote, they found a tiny uptick in the share of votes that went to Democratic candidates for Congress, governor, and president—approximately 0.7%. But the difference was so small that the margin of statistical error means it's possible there was no effect at all, Holbein says. "There might be a teensy, tiny effect on Democratic turnout."
At any rate, Republicans will take the House and Senate in the midterms, and the WH in 2024. Before then, mail ballots and in person voting need to be made as foolproof as possible to keep the scheming Democrats from finding new and novel ways to exploit the voting process nationwide
So basically he is using his one court case to air all of his grievances.
It makes me think he is close to shutting down (or should be) as he is throwing everything into the case over a man lying to the FBI...
It looks like that man is just the tip of the iceberg. What are you afraid of him finding out?
The wheels of justice can grind exceedingly slowly
Tip of the iceberg? He laid all he has out....
I am not afraid of anything he finds. It will just be thrown in the dustbin where the repubs have thrown the Mueller report.
This so called investigation has been going on for what, three years?
And the Mueller investigation ran for 624 days (over 22 months) with the conclusions that -
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
Mueller concluded his 22-month investigation and submitted a report to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, March 22. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the report over the weekend and filed a four-page summary of the report to Congress Sunday afternoon that was also released to the public.
In his letter to Congress, Barr summarizes the Mueller investigation as looking at two areas : Interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “ did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
As far as obstruction, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. Barr’s letter said that “the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
But Barr said that he and Rosenstein "have concluded that t he evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense."
Now, please, will you folks get off that horse - he is very, very dead and this report from Durham is gonna nail some Dems to the wall in very big ways.
Nail who? He laid out everything he has in conjunction with this one case....
Are you trying to say that if he keeps going longer he will find more?
Durham ain't done - but some Dems/Libs will be.
Sounds like what I have heard before.
Keep digging until you find something, no matter how insignificant.
Like I said, he laid all he has out there.
What more is needed?
I had no idea you had such intimate knowledge of Durham's investigation.
When did you find out that is ALL he has?
"Sounds like what I have heard before.
Keep digging until you find something, no matter how insignificant.
Like I said, he laid all he has out there.
What more is needed?"
Sounds delusional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ender - I seriously hope you're not taking your answer to the bank 'cause you ain't even got a deposit slip.
Show us, with facts, that Durham has all he needs and that he is finished.
Remember - the key information - the FACTS - have not been published so you have absolutely no idea what he has.
“Durham ain't done…”
Some would argue neither is McCarthy.
What more does he need? How long should it go on? Until the midterms?
This seed is a timeline of what he has found out. He himself laid it all out there.
So you are saying there is no facts in this seed?
McCarthy - as in Joseph, who died in 1957???
You love to extrapolate, and, no, that is NOT what I said.
Yep.
Same motivation, same playing to the base, same inevitable and inconclusive ‘red’ herrings.
If you meant wait until the report comes out I agree.
My point is, as I said, he basically laid it all out there. That is what the seed shows.
I guess this is not enough for some and they think it should continue.
You have no idea who or what else is investigating.
On the same token, neither do you.
Correct. None of us know what else might be going in in the Durham investigation. So may I suggest just like for the Mueller investigation we sit back and wait for the people running the show to state the work is done and here are the results. Anything else about it should continue or is this all there is all fall into the same partisan talking points.
As for what was laid out in this seed, it seems to me this is just what was laid out for this one court case and is not all the evidence. I don't think this is all the evidence for this one case, it's just a timeline that was laid out. We will find out when we find out.
My point was why was he laying all this out just for this one case, unless he was using it as a sounding board. That is just what it sounded like to me.
I agree though. All of this is conjecture until it is final.
Now when that will be...
"Now, please, will you folks get off that horse - he is very, very dead and this report from Durham is gonna nail some Dems to the wall in very big ways."
Speaking of denial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!
How long are we supposed to wait for these indictments against the DEMS???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Again, speaking of denial!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOW!
Hey we are all STILL waiting for Trump to be indicted because of the Great Mueller Report, too!
Any word when the indictment will be coming, or are you finally going to admit, like Mueller did, that no evidence of any collusion occurred?
Except, beginning at least by 2014 and continuing right up to election day in Nov 2016 Trump was in secret negotiations with known clandestine agents of Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower Moscow while lying about it which caused the FBI and CIA to investigate his and the Trump organization's ongoing relationships with Putin's secret agents...
[deleted]
What is untrue? Don Jr and Guiliani admitted it!
Did you read your link or just not understand it? Honestly, if you say have some sort of learning disability I'll cut you some slack and let you get away with this nonsense, but I'm assuming you are not disabled.
Words have actual meanings. Just because you have a link that uses words like Trump, Moscow and Tower it doesn't mean you get to project your fantasies upon the text. For fucks sake you are talking about "known clandestine agents." How does that even make sense to you?
Your link says nothing about negotiations with "known clandestine (LOL) agents of the Russian State Intelligence Services. Its doesn't claim Trump was negotiating to build a hotel until election day and it certainly doesn't say the negotiations caused the "FBI and CIA to investigate his and the Trump organization's ongoing relationships with Putin's secret agents". Look at how much disinformation you packed into one sentence! That's a phenomenal rate of dishonesty! Putin must be proud of you, sewing disinformation at a rate he can only aspire to.
You really have no excuse to keep perpetuating misinformation. Unless, of course, you are disabled.
I stand by established facts as I stated them!
Donald Trump got himself and his organization invested by the CIA and FBI for seeking out and for meeting with and for establishing secret ties with multiple known clandestine agents of Russian State Intelligence Services. That is why Drummond has no case and never will. The deep roots of the Trump Russia Investigation were caused by Trump's own actions. Deal with it. Drummond cannot make a case because it...
None of that it is true. Why you've adopted Goebbels as a model to follow is question only you can answer, but a lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Read the Mueller report, one time.
PS... look up the words "known" and "clandestine."
Unredacted Mueller Report was not released!
You're denying what Trump already admitted.
Lol... You are reduced to projecting your fantasies upon "unredacted" information!! Do you know what that means? Do you imagine the "unredacted" reports somehow contradict what Mueller wrote?
Since it's behind a paywall, why don't you cut and paste the part where Trump admitted all these things you claim..
Oh that's right. Because he didn't admit it. Read the Mueller report.
You know Trump testified under oath about this, right? He did not admit any of this
“Trump testified under oath…”
Funny that.
Exactly, as if that means anything.
In America, it's a crime when you lie under oath. So, most people (when the topic isn't Trump which breaks brains) would say that testimony under oath is more likely to be true than testimony not under oath.
So yes, what Trump testified to under oath is relevant about discussing what "Trump admitted to".
Not to trump it isn't.
Who the hell is Drummond?
Then where is the perjury charge? You think the dems and media wouldn't be salivating if they thought they could prove Donald lied under oath?
Just another made up character in the fiction he is writing.
Where would they start ? Anytime trump has sworn an oath in a court of law he has lied somewhere in his testimony. You can take that to the bank.
So what is holding them back, because they don't know where to start?
Great....show me the perjury charges.
Who said he was caught ?
Ya, whatever you say we can take to the bank
I love the warm weather but it always brings out the gnats. Nasty little buggers.
Life, gnats are living their lives with what nature gave them, same as you.
Uh, thanks...I guess.
Yes, sleep tight and you know the rest