Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (5 Viewers)

[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]

*Except the secret Trump Tower Moscow deal worth billions that Trump lied about and directed his lawyer to lie to Congress about, and all the secret meetings with Russians with virtually everyone on the Trump campaign's foreign policy apparatus while Russia was hacking and publishing Democrats' emails to help Trump win and the promises not to escalate sanctions for attacking us.

The same Trump Tower deal that never happened and never got further than discussions between Cohen and Sater? If it would have happened that sounds more like an example of corruption that Russia election collusion.

Trump campaigned on better relations with Russia much like Obama campaigned on better relations with Iran. Is it that surprising that his foreign policy team would meet with Russians? I'm guessing you are referring to Flynn when you are talking about not escalating sanctions, but that's not accurate. Flynn said not to escalate In reaponse to the expulsions which is quite different that the monetary sanctions that Mueller incorrectly cited.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, we will probably never agree on this. But I would just caution you about reading the sorts of biased sources that you are relying on, and taking all the one sided talk to heart. There are quite a few people who will excuse anything that Trump and the Trump campaign did (which was a lot of really shady stuff), while “throwing the book” at procedural errors from the other side. They all have their reasons, I suppose, but you are so heavily invested in it that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Trump and the Trump campaign (every single person) told lies at every turn. They lied to Mueller and they lied to Congress. We don’t know the half of what went on. We see Trump’s corruption almost daily, we see the way every press secretary is made to go out and tell just huge lies for Trump that started day one of his presidency. We have seen him make his ambassador try to get Britain to put a lucrative golf tournament in one of his courses, we’ve seen him attempt to steer the G-7 to one of his resorts, we’ve seen him attempt to get Ukraine, China, and one of the South American countries that I cannot even remember to dig up dirt on Biden or help him in his re-election bid, we’ve seen him just recently attempt to use the Post Office as a weapon against democrats to sway the election. Someone like that doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt from me.

On the other hand, the FBI is not exactly a democratic stronghold. Comey damaged Clinton far more than he ever damaged Trump. There was no huge deep state conspiracy to “get” Trump in my opinion. It’s far more likely that these mostly straight arrow, conservative law enforcement types became alarmed at all the shady dealings during the campaign, and after. It was Trump’s own DOJ that appointed Mueller, after all. All this Obama, deep state crap is just that. It’s an attempt to make himself into a victim, when he is the one doing all the unethical, shady stuff all along.

We can agree to disagree, but you changed the subject and didn't answer the specific responses I made to your post.

You probably don't have room to complain about posting biased sources when you posted Andrew Weissmann, who looked bad in the Enron case, and Empty Wheel who either lied when she claimed she turned in a source to the FBI because they had information about the Russia investigation or commited the journalists biggest ethical sin of identifying a source. Wheeler still won't reveal what happened.

 

[Nebaghead]

The same Trump Tower deal that never happened and never got further than discussions between Cohen and Sater? If it would have happened that sounds more like an example of corruption that Russia election collusion.

Trump campaigned on better relations with Russia much like Obama campaigned on better relations with Iran. Is it that surprising that his foreign policy team would meet with Russians? I'm guessing you are referring to Flynn when you are talking about not escalating sanctions, but that's not accurate. Flynn said not to escalate In reaponse to the expulsions which is quite different that the monetary sanctions that Mueller incorrectly cited.

Typically your foreign policy team doesn’t meet with other countries before they are elected or even take office for that matter.
Why don’t you admit you don’t care if Trump asked for help from Russia to be elected. It would be more honest. I haven’t heard you once say Trump did something wrong, just excuses.

 

[MT15]

We can agree to disagree, but you changed the subject and didn't answer the specific responses I made to your post.

You probably don't have room to complain about posting biased sources when you posted Andrew Weissmann, who looked bad in the Enron case, and Empty Wheel who either lied when she claimed she turned in a source to the FBI because they had information about the Russia investigation or commited the journalists biggest ethical sin of identifying a source. Wheeler still won't reveal what happened.

I feel like I’ve talked until I’m blue in the face, you have your mind made up, and nothing will change it. You are still making the erroneous assertion that Flynn had to be only talking about the expulsions. That’s just one thing that I looked up and tried to explain to you previously. I spent some time on it. And you just ignored it. That’s fine, but it will impact how much time I will spend answering you in the future.

As far as what I posted from the tweets, you didn’t answer their issues, you just disparaged the sources, not by showing what they said was wrong, but by bringing up things that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Taylor and I both took time to try to explain why Herridge is promoting a narrative here, in her own sly way. She is no impartial reporter, that’s for sure. We brought up credible criticism of this indictment, showing how Durham is shading things subtly to make his point seem different than it is.

Look, I can’t pretend to understand all the legal ramifications, which is why I posted the tweets and asked for an explanation. So in the absence of legal knowledge, common sense has to take over. Common sense tells me that Trump is a morally bankrupt sleazeball. And while the FBI has certainly been known to make mistakes, and did here, it is not a democratic institution. It rather leans pretty much Republican. There is no “deep state” conspiracy trying to “get” Trump. Also, Barr has shown himself to be a political operative. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. It’s basically revenge porn for Trump, who wants nothing more than to imprison his political rivals, heck, it’s almost all he can think about sometimes.

You asked me if I think Durham is finished, and I never answered. I don’t know, but I suspect there’s not much left. I’ve read rumors that he didn’t find anything, other than what was already found by Horowitz. Whether that’s true or not we will have to wait and see. I did think that Trump saying the other day that Barr could be great or “just another guy” depending on what he does was an interesting comment. He seemed to be hinting that he just might be disappointed about something. Which made me wonder if Barr had told him that Durham was done and didn’t find his deep state conspiracy. It’s just a hunch, who knows.

 

[SaintForLife]

Typically your foreign policy team doesn’t meet with other countries before they are elected or even take office for that matter.
Why don’t you admit you don’t care if Trump asked for help from Russia to be elected. It would be more honest. I haven’t heard you once say Trump did something wrong, just excuses.

Imo I just think it's silly to point to Trump asking the Russians at a press conference to find the emails that Hillary already had deleted by bleachbit. If Trump was really colluding with Russia, don't you think he would have a way to communicate with them secretly so the whole world wouldn't know their plans?

I've said multiple times that it was more likey to find Trump was guilty of money laundering or tax evasion that some Tom Clancy like Russia election collusion.

 

[MT15]

Oh, Trump is definitely guilty of money laundering, tax fraud and insurance fraud. It’s not one or the other.

The collusion doesn’t have to be Tom Clancy style, though. Although we do have some of that going on in that meeting in the Seychelles (sp?) that everyone has been lying about. And Manafort giving private campaign polling info to a Russian intelligence type person. And Cambridge Analytica. Good lord, they were dirty.

Imo what happened (I judge this as most likely) was that Trump was told that the Russians wanted him to win, and he set about maximizing that for his own political benefit in any way he could. As only a completely amoral hack who cares nothing about America and only cares about his own greedy self-interest could do.

He asked Stone to coordinate with Wikileaks, and he got prior knowledge of the Podesta email hack. He did his famous request on TV for the Clinton emails, which we now know set off a flurry of hacking attempts from the Russians within hours of that request. He approved of the Don Jr meeting with someone they were told was a lawyer from the Russian government and then lied about the meeting when it leaked.

IMO, the investigation wasn’t strong enough, they didn’t go hard enough at the Trump family. When this all comes out it will be looked at as a strong betrayal of our democratic election process. IMO.

We shall see as things continue to come out.

 

[SaintForLife]

I feel like I’ve talked until I’m blue in the face, you have your mind made up, and nothing will change it. You are still making the erroneous assertion that Flynn had to be only talking about the expulsions. That’s just one thing that I looked up and tried to explain to you previously. I spent some time on it. And you just ignored it. That’s fine, but it will impact how much time I will spend answering you in the future.

We probably feel the same way about changing each other's minds. You still won't acknowledge that the Trump campaign was spied on by the Obama administration despite the IG report that I posted clearly saying that. You said there needed to be another step, but you didn't say what that step was.

I've previously went over in detail Flynn talking about the expulsions and not sanctions. I actually posted the relevant portions of the transcript that clearly show that Flynn was talking about expulsions and he never mentioned sanctions. Kislyak said the word sanctions once and I believe Flynns response was okay or yeah.

As far as what I posted from the tweets, you didn’t answer their issues, you just disparaged the sources, not by showing what they said was wrong, but by bringing up things that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Taylor and I both took time to try to explain why Herridge is promoting a narrative here, in her own sly way. She is no impartial reporter, that’s for sure. We brought up credible criticism of this indictment, showing how Durham is shading things subtly to make his point seem different than it is.

Look, I can’t pretend to understand all the legal ramifications, which is why I posted the tweets and asked for an explanation. So in the absence of legal knowledge, common sense has to take over. Common sense tells me that Trump is a morally bankrupt sleazeball. And while the FBI has certainly been known to make mistakes, and did here, it is not a democratic institution. It rather leans pretty much Republican. There is no “deep state” conspiracy trying to “get” Trump. Also, Barr has shown himself to be a political operative. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. It’s basically revenge porn for Trump, who wants nothing more than to imprison his political rivals, heck, it’s almost all he can think about sometimes.

I'm no legal expert and like you said you didn't understand all the legal ramifications. I did post Turley showing how Weissmann was clearly dishonest in some tweets that were before the ones you posted. Look at his history from the Enron case to see what kind of lawyer that he is. Considering that it's possible that Weissmann could be involved in what Durham is looking at means he's probably not someone to use as a reliable source of information. I'm not saying he is involved, but the last FISA Page renewal was done after the Special Counsel was created.

My statement about Weissmann and Wheeler being biased was in response to you saying Herridge was biased. It's ironic that you talked about her bias, but then you criticized me for saying your sources were biased too. It's also ironic that you repeatedly say that Herridge is pushing a narrative, but you are unable to see the narrative that the Russia collusion people have been pushing for almost 4 years

You asked me if I think Durham is finished, and I never answered. I don’t know, but I suspect there’s not much left. I’ve read rumors that he didn’t find anything, other than what was already found by Horowitz. Whether that’s true or not we will have to wait and see. I did think that Trump saying the other day that Barr could be great or “just another guy” depending on what he does was an interesting comment. He seemed to be hinting that he just might be disappointed about something. Which made me wonder if Barr had told him that Durham was done and didn’t find his deep state conspiracy. It’s just a hunch, who knows.

I was talking about you not responding about the IG report showing the Obama administration did spy on the Trump campaign.

Durham's history shows he doesn't leak so I doubt any sources on either side really know what he has found or hasn't found.

 

[MT15]

This stuff coming out now will require some thought, but at first glance it isn’t good for the “no Russian collusion” crowd. And I have felt for a while that Mueller either went easy, or was stopped from exposing what he should have.

 

[SaintForLife]

This stuff coming out now will require some thought, but at first glance it isn’t good for the “no Russian collusion” crowd. And I have felt for a while that Mueller either went easy, or was stopped from exposing what he should have.

Mueller didn't go easy and he wasn't stopped. He just didn't find what the Democrats were hoping for.

That Senate report doesn't provide any evidence for their most explosive claim. They claim Kilimnik was Russian intelligence and don't provide any evidence to back up that claim. Mueller didn't claim Kilimnik was Russian intelligence so its curious that the Senate could find that considering Mueller had more investigative powers.

 

[SaintForLife]

Durham interviewed Brennan yesterday for 8 hours. The spin from Brennan has already started. This is Brennan's former spokesman. It is smart politically for Brennan to claim that Durham said he wasn't a target and that he hopes the results will be apolitical. If Brennan does face charges then he can claim it's all political.

 

[SaintForLife]

The Senate claimed Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence, but he worked for John McCain previously.

Not mentioned in the filing is the fact that Mr. Kilimnik also worked in the 2000s in Moscow for the Washington-based International Republican Institute, a pro-democracy nonprofit led by Sen. John McCain for 25 years.

Paul Manafort lawyers: Ukrainian employee was U.S. asset, not a Russian spy

Paul Manafort's legal team is trying to show that his longtime Ukraine employee was a U.S. asset and not necessarily a Russian spy, as portrayed by special counsel Robert Mueller, a court filing...

apnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Interesting perspective on Russia from Oliver Stone on the Bill Maher show:

 

[FullMonte]

Durham interviewed Brennan yesterday for 8 hours. The spin from Brennan has already started. This is Brennan's former spokesman. It is smart politically for Brennan to claim that Durham said he wasn't a target and that he hopes the results will be apolitical. If Brennan does face charges then he can claim it's all political.

LOL...that's just hilarious...

Brennan was interviewed personally for 8 hours. He was informed that he wasn't a target. This is spin. If he faces charges, he can claim it's all political. This somehow shows something nefarious about Brennan

Trump refused to be interviewed personally. He was informed that he wasn't a target. This was also spin, I take it? I mean, Trump has claimed that all of the people in his orbit who were charged and convicted were victims of political shennanigans.

 

[MT15]

Mueller didn't go easy and he wasn't stopped. He just didn't find what the Democrats were hoping for.

That Senate report doesn't provide any evidence for their most explosive claim. They claim Kilimnik was Russian intelligence and don't provide any evidence to back up that claim. Mueller didn't claim Kilimnik was Russian intelligence so its curious that the Senate could find that considering Mueller had more investigative powers.

There is no way to know that your first sentence is true. It’s an opinion.

The second paragraph is just a rehash of other unfounded opinions. These statements have been rebutted already here before, not worth going back over.

We also don’t know that Brennan’s spokesperson is lying, that’s a pretty convenient way to explain away that Brennan isn’t a target. I think there won’t be any big surprises out of this investigation. I think Trump is already disappointed in it. JMO.

 

[SaintForLife]

LOL...that's just hilarious...

Brennan was interviewed personally for 8 hours. He was informed that he wasn't a target. This is spin. If he faces charges, he can claim it's all political. This somehow shows something nefarious about Brennan

Trump refused to be interviewed personally. He was informed that he wasn't a target. This was also spin, I take it? I mean, Trump has claimed that all of the people in his orbit who were charged and convicted were victims of political shennanigans.

The only person who said that Durham was told he wasn't a target is Brennan's spokesman. We don't even know if Durham told Brennan that. It is curious that Durham had someone else put that information out instead of just doing it himself. 8 hours sure seems like a long time to be interviewed if he's only a witness. We'll see what happens

 

[SaintForLife]

There is no way to know that your first sentence is true. It’s an opinion.

The second paragraph is just a rehash of other unfounded opinions. These statements have been rebutted already here before, not worth going back over.

We also don’t know that Brennan’s spokesperson is lying, that’s a pretty convenient way to explain away that Brennan isn’t a target. I think there won’t be any big surprises out of this investigation. I think Trump is already disappointed in it. JMO.

Yes that first sentence was an opinion. Your sentence about Mueller going easy on Trump or being stopped is also an opinion. There's nothing out there that would lead us to think Mueller took it easy or was stopped.

The 2nd paragraph isn't unfounded opinions. There is not a single shred of evidence in that Senate report that shows where they came up with their assessment that Kilimnik was Russian Intelligence.

 

[MT15]

SFL, I presented my thoughts as an opinion. “I have felt”. You presented your opinion as if it were fact, which is why I felt the need to point out that it is opinion.

I disagree that there is nothing to lend itself that Mueller was constrained, but it’s pointless to debate this stuff.

We have no reason to believe that Brennan, through his spokesperson, is lying. It would be stupid to lie about his meeting with Durham, as the facts will come out at some point. And Durham could easily have a spokesperson say it wasn’t true right now, if he felt it wasn’t properly characterized.

And it’s pretty odd to think that the Senate intelligence report would spell out how they know someone is a Russian intelligence officer. I cannot imagine that information wouldn’t be classified and therefore either redacted or just not put in the report. I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that they don’t spell out how they know that.

You also made a big deal about Kilimnik working for McCain years ago and/or being a source of information for the FBI at one point. I don’t find that inconsistent with him being Russian intelligence nor do I think that automatically makes him a “double agent”. I think it’s probably not unusual for people who are Russian intelligence to try to work themselves into positions of trust if they are sent over here.

 

[FullMonte]

The only person who said that Durham was told he wasn't a target is Brennan's spokesman. We don't even know if Durham told Brennan that. It is curious that Durham had someone else put that information out instead of just doing it himself.

And, that's different than Trump, how? Can you show us when Mueller or Trump stated (a day or two after the discussion) that Trump wasn't a target of the investigation? Or did that come from others?

The idea that Brennan's people would say "Durham said Brennan isn't a target"if it's not true is silly. If it was a lie, Durham's people could come out the next second and say, "No one said that." In fact, if Brennan is lying about that, why hasn't Durham clarified it?