Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (11 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
    SaintForLife

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    It looks like the first shoe has dropped with the Durham investigation with the Clinesmith plea deal. Clinesmith wasn't a low level FBI employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

    He worked with Strzok to arrange sending an FBI agent into Trump-Flynn briefing, was on the Mueller team, he took part in the Papadopoulos interviews, and he participated in the FISA process.



    From the NYT article:
    20200814_153906.jpg

    www.nytimes.com

    Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Review of Russia Inquiry (Published 2020)

    Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged.
    www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

    I wonder who else knew about the lies?



     
    MT15 said:
    SFL: all you do is regurgitate the same people over and over, and refuse to engage with legitimate queries that poke holes in your narrative. I noticed you didn’t address the nice critique of your new fave article that Buddha posted. How it overlooks a lot in order to zero in on some things that don’t matter, giving them great importance while ignoring inconvenient facts that get in the way of his narrative. He’s following the same playbook all your other pals follow, and his credibility is shot, as far as I’m concerned.

    Barr and Durham found nothing they could prosecute for, that’s just a fact. Durham failed spectacularly and made a fool of himself, ruining a decent reputation.

    Barr evidently covered up a criminal investigation that involved Trump, but you want to sweep that under the rug based solely on Barr’s say-so? Lol. Yeah, the burglar says it was nothing, so just let him go. I mean his word is good, right? 🤦‍♀️

    You never address the facts that are known that prove Trump was shady as hell about Russia, lied about his business dealings in Russia (and China too for that matter), knew Russia was trying to help him get elected and welcomed the help. Trump wasn’t unduly persecuted, he brought everything that happened to him on himself by being a crooked shady piece of shirt human being. You are not supposed to welcome help from a foreign country to get elected. That’s inviting election interference and Trump did that.
    Click to expand...
    Buddha posted an article from the first journalist who pushed the BS Steele Dossier in David Corn. I previously posted some examples of why Corn isn't credible and Corn still stands by the Steele Dossier even after it's been discredited. Corn is not a credible journalist. He's a Democrat partisan masquerading as a journalist.

    I posted multiple examples of why it's laughable that someone would try to preemptively discredit the Durham report by using the NYT after their behavior in Russiagte was exposed by The Press vs The Presidnt article.

    Your paragraph on Trump is nice and all, but Mueller:
    20230226_150404.jpg

    Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who opened Trump-Russia probe, wrote that "we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials."
    20230226_150410.jpg
     
    What’s the date on that Strzok quote? What’s the source of it?

    What you are (still) defending is that a US Presidential campaign welcomed help from a foreign adversary in its bid to win the presidency. I don’t care if it met the legal definition of a conspiracy, it was wrong. It was unethical and immoral. Mueller had to care about legal definitions, I don’t. If you will defend Trump in this matter, what does that indicate? Why are you okay with it?

    In hindsight Mueller wasn’t the right person for the job. In his defense, he was dealing with a president who is unhinged, and willing to use the DOJ to settle personal scores.
     


    The actual crime here, if the left wants to look at things objectively, is the censorship from big tech, the Democrats, and the Corporate media. At the center of the story, of course is the Biden Administration's collusion with big banks to get involved in Urkaine.
     
    RebSaint said:


    The actual crime here, if the left wants to look at things objectively, is the censorship from big tech, the Democrats, and the Corporate media. At the center of the story, of course is the Biden Administration's collusion with big banks to get involved in Urkaine.
    Click to expand...

    Hey, don’t bogart whatever you are smoking.
     
    MT15 said:
    What’s the date on that Strzok quote? What’s the source of it?

    What you are (still) defending is that a US Presidential campaign welcomed help from a foreign adversary in its bid to win the presidency. I don’t care if it met the legal definition of a conspiracy, it was wrong. It was unethical and immoral. Mueller had to care about legal definitions, I don’t. If you will defend Trump in this matter, what does that indicate? Why are you okay with it?

    In hindsight Mueller wasn’t the right person for the job. In his defense, he was dealing with a president who is unhinged, and willing to use the DOJ to settle personal scores.
    Click to expand...
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Click to expand...

    That’s what I thought. 2017.

    Also, I find it fascinating that you consider Strzok a complete liar, devoid of any redeeming quality, UNLESS he says something you like. Then all of a sudden, his statement is incontrovertible truth.

    🤡
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Click to expand...

    So, Strzok made that comment in Feb (possibly early March) of 2017. Mueller wasn't appointed until May of that year. You think it might be possible that during the Mueller investigation they learned things that the FBI did not know when Strzok made that comment?
     
    After wasting everyone’s time and money, Durham is closing the clown show that was his investigation. What an idiotic excuse. And Rs accuse the Dems of “weaponization of the DOJ”. Nobody did that like Trump and Barr.

     
    So, I’m reading that Durham, despite his regulations saying he has to disclose all types of illegal activity he finds, had declined to include whatever criminal activity Italy disclosed to him about Trump in his report. Another shocker, I know:

     
    The MAGA Twitter is unhinged tonight. It’s really crazy talk on there. I don’t know how we have this many people saying that Durham‘s report proves that Clinton, Obama and Biden all committed treason and that the FBI was totally weaponized by Clinton/Obama/Biden (they can’t decide) against Trump, who DiD NoThInG WrOnG! They can’t read evidently, or use any logic or critical thinking.

    So many delusional people in this country. It’s truly sad.
     
    www.yahoo.com

    Adam Schiff Gets John Durham to Admit Russia Helped Trump

    REUTERS/Elizabeth FrantzWhen Republicans brought Special Counsel John Durham to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, they thought it’d be an opportunity to score points on Democrats—particularly Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who spent years hyping up Donald Trump’s connections to Russia.What...
    www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

     
    Life comes at you fast. One minute you are vying for the title of “Biggest Bozo in DC”, to being yelled at by man vying for the tile of “Biggest Bozo in DC”.





    What a sad state the entire political system is in this country.
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom