Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (16 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?

 

[FullMonte]

I’ll bet you it doesn’t take an hour and a half to wipe my phone. These allegations are ridiculous on their face, and get even more ridiculous the more you look into them.

You are saying that you know the phones (3) were wiped to hide something. Wouldn’t that knowledge require you to know the state of mind of the person allegedly wiping the phone? You don’t know any such thing.

Crazy conspiracy theories are not my cup of tea, although it seems that is not the case for others.

I mean, I read the documents on the websites linked in the article that he posted, and at least one of them said that the wrong passcode was given to the user. SFL should probably contact his congressman to let him know that those documents are fraudulent.

 

[SaintForLife]

Better late then never I guess



In many cases, the media response to Russian accounts has the effect of magnifying their reach far beyond anything they could achieve by themselves. One tweet cited by the Times in April has amassed a grand total of one retweet and two likes. As Toler put it, “The tiny whimper of disinformation is transformed into something far louder and more dangerous.” And instilling that sense of danger is precisely the goal of disinformation.

Media organizations are not the only culprits when it comes to focussing on the wrong threat, or inflating the danger such threats pose. In early June, amid the rise of nationwide protests after George Floyd’s death, Susan Rice, the former U.N. Ambassador and national-security adviser in the Obama Administration, spoke on CNN about her suspicions that “foreign actors” were trying to hijack the protests to increase tensions, adding, “This is right out of the Russian playbook.” The appeal of the narrative was broadly shared: Attorney General William Barr also blamed “foreign actors” for looting and violence. Foreign interference is now a trope in American politics, at risk of becoming as cheap and meaningless as the term “fake news” became once it was co-opted by Trump.

Such externally guided operations exist, but to exaggerate their prevalence and potency ends up eroding the idea of genuine bottom-up protest—in a way that, ironically, is entirely congenial to Putin’s conspiratorial world view. It also provides an overly convenient explanation for much of what is ugly and false in our politics. When the immune system overreacts to a foreign pathogen, the result can be more damaging to the host than the pathogen itself.

 

[SaintForLife]

Wow...that's good to know. I guess I can be expecting a call from the base security office soon. I recently had to have my accounts to some government websites reset because I entered the wrong password multiple times. I really thought I was just making mistakes when I type in those wrong passwords. Thanks for clarifying it to me that I was actually doing it to hide something. I'll be making an appointment with the mental health office so they can help me figure out how I was unaware that I was hiding something.

Oh were you a prosecutor on Mueller's team too? Good to know

 

[SaintForLife]

Do we apply this same logic to Trump's tax returns?

Do we apply this same logic to Trump refusing to meet with Mueller in person for questioning?

Do we apply this same logic to the high ranking members of Trump's administration who ignored subpoenas and refused to testify before Congress?

Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide? Isn't that what the logic says?

But then there's this from another thread.

Let's compare completely different situations and also act like anyone would take those silly comparisons seriously.

 

[SaintForLife]

I mean, I read the documents on the websites linked in the article that he posted, and at least one of them said that the wrong passcode was given to the user. SFL should probably contact his congressman to let him know that those documents are fraudulent.

Luckily the DOJ is looking into the wiped phones.

 

[The moose]

Better late then never I guess



In many cases, the media response to Russian accounts has the effect of magnifying their reach far beyond anything they could achieve by themselves. One tweet cited by the Times in April has amassed a grand total of one retweet and two likes. As Toler put it, “The tiny whimper of disinformation is transformed into something far louder and more dangerous.” And instilling that sense of danger is precisely the goal of disinformation.

Media organizations are not the only culprits when it comes to focussing on the wrong threat, or inflating the danger such threats pose. In early June, amid the rise of nationwide protests after George Floyd’s death, Susan Rice, the former U.N. Ambassador and national-security adviser in the Obama Administration, spoke on CNN about her suspicions that “foreign actors” were trying to hijack the protests to increase tensions, adding, “This is right out of the Russian playbook.” The appeal of the narrative was broadly shared: Attorney General William Barr also blamed “foreign actors” for looting and violence. Foreign interference is now a trope in American politics, at risk of becoming as cheap and meaningless as the term “fake news” became once it was co-opted by Trump.

Such externally guided operations exist, but to exaggerate their prevalence and potency ends up eroding the idea of genuine bottom-up protest—in a way that, ironically, is entirely congenial to Putin’s conspiratorial world view. It also provides an overly convenient explanation for much of what is ugly and false in our politics. When the immune system overreacts to a foreign pathogen, the result can be more damaging to the host than the pathogen itself.

Did you even read that whole article?

If you get that it says that Russia did not do anything much at all it is the evil press.

If you believe that then you must believe that the press is exceptionally responsible for Trump's election with all the arse grabbing, making fun of the handicap, and all the other absolutely stupid shirt trump did in the last election cycle that got staggering amounts for air time.

That article definitely did not say Russia did not do anything but the press pushed it further.

 

[The moose]

Luckily the DOJ is looking into the wiped phones.

I am amazed Barr has time considering he is super busy taking over all the other Trump dirty laundry like hiding his DNA.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Let's compare completely different situations and also act like anyone would take those silly comparisons seriously.

The only difference between the two situations is who's accused of hiding information of wrong doing. In one case it's Trump, in the other it's people that investigated Trump.

Not consistently applying the same logical standards in every case of someone possibly hiding wrong doing is the epitome of having double standards. Having double standards is actually having no standards.

Using one line of reasoning for people one supports and another opposite line of reasoning for people one doesn't support, means one is not relying on reasoning at all.

When using double standards, one is showing they have made an emotional decision and are then saying whatever they can to try to justify that decision without much regard for accuracy in recounting facts and details. The primary motivation is to support friends and allies regardless of the truth, and to make those opposed to one's friends and allies look bad while showing the same disregard for the truth.

Sometimes the desire to support one's friends and allies is so deeply, emotionally rooted that they sincerely believe they are being honest and accurate with the facts and the truths.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Luckily the DOJ is looking into the wiped phones.

The same DOJ that looked into charging and arresting the mayor of Seattle?

The same DOJ that is talking about charging protestors with sedition?

The same DOJ that is trying to drop charges against a man that confessed to crimes?

The same DOJ that is running personal interference for Trump in a personal lawsuit?

That DOJ?

 

[SaintForLife]

The same DOJ that looked into charging and arresting the mayor of Seattle?

The same DOJ that is talking about charging protestors with sedition?

The same DOJ that is trying to drop charges against a man that confessed to crimes?

The same DOJ that is running personal interference for Trump in a personal lawsuit?

That DOJ?

The same DOJ that appointed your savior Mueller?

 

[LA - L.A.]

The same DOJ that appointed your savior Mueller?

Please quote were I ever said Mueller was my savior or anything even remotely close to that. As you like to say to people, "I'll hang up and listen."

Now that we got that attempted distraction out of the way, let's get back to the actual facts of the matter.

Barr was not the head of the DOJ when Mueller was appointed and he had nothing to do with appointing Muellar.

Jeff Sessions was the head of the DOJ at that time and recused himself from the Russia investigation, because of a conflict of interest. Rosenstein as next in command appointed Mueller as a special prosecutor.

Barr is currently the head of the DOJ. He has done all of the things I mentioned as head of the DOJ. Barr is also the one who has the DOJ "looking in to" the erasing of the phones.

Do you dispute any of those facts as not being true?

 

[SaintForLife]

The only difference between the two situations is who's accused of hiding information of wrong doing. In one case it's Trump, in the other it's people that investigated Trump.

Not consistently applying the same logical standards in every case of someone possibly hiding wrong doing is the epitome of having double standards. Having double standards is actually having no standards.

Using one line of reasoning for people one supports and another opposite line of reasoning for people one doesn't support, means one is not relying on reasoning at all.

When using double standards, one is showing they have made an emotional decision and are then saying whatever they can to try to justify that decision without much regard for accuracy in recounting facts and details. The primary motivation is to support friends and allies regardless of the truth, and to make those opposed to one's friends and allies look bad while showing the same disregard for the truth.

Sometimes the desire to support one's friends and allies is so deeply, emotionally rooted that they sincerely believe they are being honest and accurate with the facts and the truths.

The difference between your irrelevant examples and the wiped phones is that your's had zero to do with the Ferderal Records act and the wiped phones did.

 

[MT15]

SFL, you don’t give a shirt about the Federal Records Act. Because if you did you would have been complaining for years about the many ways the Trump Administration has been flouting it.

LA has laid out some extremely pertinent examples for you. Can you deal honestly with the inconsistencies in your logic that have been pointed out?

 

[LA - L.A.]

The difference between your irrelevant examples and the wiped phones is that your's had zero to do with the Ferderal Records act and the wiped phones did.

This is a legal distinction trying to be shoe horned into a discussion that is about whether or not we are consistently applying the same logic and reasoning to people's motivations.

Fact, all the examples are examples of people being accused of hiding wrong doing by withholding potential evidence of their wrong doing.

That's the relevant similarity between Trump withholding his taxes and people in his administration withholding documents and testimony from Congress, and the investigators who's phones were wiped.

In the case of the investigators' phones being wiped, the logic and reasoning applied was that people only withhold information to hide wrong doing.

If one were to be consistent in that logic and reasoning, one would conclude that the only reason Trump and his administration withheld information was to hide wrong doing.

The method of how the information is withheld is not what's relevant. The relevant points are the withholding of the information itself and the motivation for withholding that information.

It's all about the motivation to withhold information, not the method by which the information is withheld.

If one believes that the investigators' motivations to withhold information was to hide wrong doing and also believes that Trump and his administration's withholding of information was not motivated by a desire to hide wrong doing, then that person is not actually following logic are reasoning.

They are predetermining what they believe from a place other than logic and reasoning, and are then trying to justify their double standards with rationalizations, which are not to be mistaken with logic and reasoning.

Now let's review the objectively know facts of the examples.

It's an objectively known fact that Trump has withheld his taxes.

It's an objectively known fact that Trump refused to meet with Mueller to be questioned.

It's an objectively known fact that several people in Trump's administration refused to testify in Congress regarding Trump's campaign and Russian election interference, and also for the investigation into Trump's dealing with Ukraine.

It's an objectively known fact that some of the phones held by those who investigated Trump were wiped clean.

What is not objectively known at this time is who caused those phones to be wiped clean. There are conflicting reports on how the phones came to be wiped.

If people only withhold information because they are hiding wrong doing, then what does that say about Trump and his administration?

 

[FullMonte]

Oh were you a prosecutor on Mueller's team too? Good to know

No. So, now you're saying that it's only Mueller's prosecutors who only forget a password when they are trying to hide something.

 

[MT15]

In a new op-ed, the argument is made that what Barr is doing on the one hand, is totally invalidating what his other hand is doing. Good read.

Bill Barr Can’t Investigate Barack Obama. Who Says So? Bill Barr.

Whatever Obamagate is, Barr can’t probe it by his own standards, which hold that a president is the law and can do practically anything.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Would this be a case of investigators investigating the investigators? It sounds like they are nervous about what Durham has found.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Would this be a case of investigators investigating the investigators? It sounds like they are nervous about what Durham has found.

Isn't the Durham investigation already a case of investigators investigating the investigators?

This would be a case of investigators investigating the investigators who are investigating the investigators, wouldn't it?

It sounds to me like they have legitimate concerns that Barr's using the justice department to push his own ideological agenda and gain political advantages for Trump.

If Barr has nothing to hide, then he shouldn't have a problem with being investigated, right?

If Barr has a problem with this, it means he has something to hide, right?

If anyone has a problem with this, it means they're afraid of what a House investigation might find out about Barr and Trump, right?

That's the rationale we've been using, right?