Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

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:

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

I wonder who else knew about the lies?

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

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:

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."

 

[MT15]

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.

 

[RebSaint]

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.

 

[bird]

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.

Hey, don’t bogart whatever you are smoking.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

 

[MT15]

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.

🤡

 

[FullMonte]

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?