sources say that a senior FBI lawyer will be pleading guilty to making false statements. Supposedly, he altered an email to say that Carter Page was not working with the CIA, when the email said he was.

The FBI says it relies on that email when applying to get a FISA surveillance warrant on Page.

IF true ( might not be), this would
be proof that the DOJ lied in order to spy on an American citizen.

nothing to see here.

It was a jr line attorney, we've known about this for over a year now I think. IG said the warrant was valid anyway. Guy was probably just sloppy and will get a slap on the wrist.

It was a jr line attorney, we've known about this for over a year now I think. IG said the warrant was valid anyway. Guy was probably just sloppy and will get a slap on the wrist.
we knew he was going to plead guilty for a year? my bad, i had no
idea.

probably just altered the email out of sloppiness.

funny thing, all these honest mistakes that liberals make, and the media makes...all of those
mistakes help democrats. i mean, being a data guy, id assume
that honest mistakes would help each side roughly half of the time. but they don’t. just a coincidence, obviously.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was Horowitz that made the criminal referral.

Horowitz also said the FISA warrant was sufficiently predicated without this lie.

Question for you and Barr: how are Flynn’s confessed lies to the FBI (repeated to the VP) not a crime, but Clinesmith changing an email (the full version of which he also sent to DOJ) is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was Horowitz that made the criminal referral.

Horowitz also said the FISA warrant was sufficiently predicated without this lie.

Question for you and Barr: how are Flynn’s confessed lies to the FBI (repeated to the VP) not a crime, but Clinesmith changing an email (the full version of which he also sent to DOJ) is?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinesmith wasn't under a phony investigation for the purpose of removing him from a position in the Trump administsration and when found to have done nothing wrong was coerced under duress into a process crime, perjury trap, "lie," which he later denies and fought against in court. But that served the original purpose of getting rid of him.

Rather, Clinesmith committed an uninstigated, unforced, uncoerced crime that was not strictly and only a result of the process of convicting him, but was the causal, willful. conscious, and intentional committing of a crime for the specific purpose of illegally affecting an investigation in order to bring down a presidency.

Clinesmith's "lie" was not a statement or plea deal to avoid some penalty, it was an act of unprovoked sabotage. Flynn had committed no crime before his coerced process "lie." Clinesmith "lie" was not a lie of process but the original act of deliberate sabotage. And your framing it as a lie is a semantic way of trying to create some sort of equivalence.

Nobody forced Flynn to lie, he made that choice.

You and the rest of the Tweety's henchmen are the predictable ones. Russian active measures for Tweety have been proven. Tweety's campaign actively trying to capitalize on Russian efforts AND obstruction of justice also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FBI attorney is pleading guilty today to precise conduct described in IG report, which we already knew was basis of criminal exposure and which in no way supports the Tweetyworld claim of a Deep State conspiracy.

See Page 250 of the IG report. Nothing in this is new, nothing suggests that this is implicating others to save himself. It is just the identical facts and you are pretending as if it's a shocking revelation.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

sources say that a senior FBI lawyer will be pleading guilty to making false statements. Supposedly, he altered an email to say that Carter Page was not working with the CIA, when the email said he was.

The FBI says it relies on that email when applying to get a FISA surveillance warrant on Page.

IF true ( might not be), this would
be proof that the DOJ lied in order to spy on an American citizen.

nothing to see here.

Junior attorney. We’ve known about this for 13 months.

Our tax dollars at work.

Thanks Billy Buttboy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nobody forced Flynn to lie, he made that choice.

I didn't say he was forced. I said he was coerced. Coercion doesn't necessarily denote or imply force.
Coercion: The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.

You and the rest of the Tweety's henchmen are the predictable ones. Russian active measures for Tweety have been proven. Tweety's campaign actively trying to capitalize on Russian efforts AND obstruction of justice also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The FBI attorney is pleading guilty today to precise conduct described in IG report, which we already knew was basis of criminal exposure and which in no way supports the Tweetyworld claim of a Deep State conspiracy.

See Page 250 of the IG report. Nothing in this is new, nothing suggests that this is implicating others to save himself. It is just the identical facts and you are pretending as if it's a shocking revelation.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Oh, but that's all old news. No big deal. We already knew that stuff. And some of it is fake like "obstruction of justice also proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

Trumps personal attorney Barr is pulling the strings and a guy (Durham) who had a decent reputation will go the way of many in this administration; they come in smelling like a rose and go out covered in s*it and the stink of this corrupt White House.

Trumps personal attorney Barr is pulling the strings and a guy (Durham) who had a decent reputation will go the way of many in this administration; they come in smelling like a rose and go out covered in s*it and the stink of this corrupt White House.
If Durham is the guy they say he is I think the report will just formalize a few things we already know with no new revelations. There will be a lot of squak on the right but nothing of substance.

didn't say he was forced. I said he was coerced. Coercion doesn't necessarily denote or imply force.
Coercion: The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.
Oh, but that's all old news. No big deal. We already knew that stuff. And some of it is fake like "obstruction of justice also proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

So it’s kinda like what Tweety did to Zelensky, just a quid pro quo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it’s kinda like what Tweety did to Zelensky, just a quid pro quo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No

TREY Gowdy was filling in for Hannity and was suggesting the whole Fbi and deepstate was in on it. Also had Graham chiming on things making claims about the Rule of law....

Jim what will be your postion when the biden administration AG dismiss the case or Biden pardons the lawyer.

Let also talk about Timing
What other supposed Republican bombshell will be Dropped in the next 80 days ..

Ps if he forged documents he should be charged and he plead guilty. Maybe he was forced to like Flynn was forced to plead guilty
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Russian Pro Trump Operation was so effective, it went back and made a FBI "Resistance" Lawyer (one of Mueller's Probe's Core Team) and change the source evidence to initiate a FISA warrant (and follow on warrants).

Damn they are good!!

Mr. Clinesmith was among the F.B.I. officials whom Mr. Mueller removed from the Russia investigation after Mr. Horowitz found messages they had exchanged expressing political animus against Mr. Trump. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s election victory, Mr. Clinesmith texted another official: “I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost.”


In another text, he wrote, “viva le resistance.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/us/politics/kevin-clinesmith-durham-investigation.html

The Russian Pro Trump Operation was so effective, it went back and made a FBI "Resistance" Lawyer (one of Mueller's Probe's Core Team) and change the source evidence to initiate a FISA warrant (and follow on warrants).

Damn they are good!!

It’s amazing, considering the FBI is primarily made up of deep state democratic pedophiles, the fact that they’ve been able to only make a few mistakes exposing their vast conspiracy to destroy America is remarkable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s amazing, considering the FBI is primarily made up of deep state democratic pedophiles, the fact that they’ve been able to only make a few mistakes exposing their vast conspiracy to destroy America is remarkable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device




And you probably think Clinesmith accidentally copied and pasted "not a source" onto the FISA warrant request and then three more times neglected to change his mistake.

"Supervisory Special Agent 2," who swore to an affidavit for all three FISA renewals against Page in 2017, told Horowitz's investigators that on the third renewal he wanted "a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application."

While in contact with what was reportedly the CIA's liaison, Clinesmith was reminded that back in August 2016, predating the first Page warrant application in October 2016, the other agency informed the FBI that Page "did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency."

An email from the other government agency's liaison was sent to Clinesmith, who then "altered the liaison's email by inserting the words 'not a source' into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was 'not a source' for the other agency" and sent it to "Supervisory Special Agent 2," Horowitz found.

"Relying upon this altered email, [Clinesmith] signed the third renewal application that again failed to disclose Page's past relationship with the other agency," Horowitz wrote.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-lawyer-under-criminal-investigation-altered-document-to-say-carter-page-was-not-a-source-for-another-agency

Meanwhile Tweety had deals in Russia and denied it
Was funded by dirty Russian money that he cleaned up and more.
When this #^&#^&#^&#^& finally hits the sunlight, you’ll be amazed.
The NY AG is deep into Tweety’s finances and it’s looking indictable
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile deviceMany people are saying that the President is not really legitimate. I have never seen Trumps original birth certificate. I know his mom was born in Scotland. People seem to be wondering where he was really born. I guess the question needs to be asked because he seldom tells the truth.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile deviceMany people are saying that the President is not really legitimate. I have never seen Trumps original birth certificate. I know his mom was born in Scotland. People seem to be wondering where he was really born. I guess the question needs to be asked because he seldom tells the truth.

you've been wrong about everything for 4 years so why not add yet another to your resume' :rotf2:

Today marks the 675th day of the Durham investigation into the origins and conduct of the investigation that became the Mueller investigation. That means Durham’s investigation has lasted one day longer than the entire Mueller investigation, which Republicans complained lasted far too long.

The single solitary prosecution Durham has obtained in that span of time in which Mueller prosecuted George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Richard Pinedo, Alex Van der Zwan, Michael Cohen (for his lies about Trump’s Trump Tower Moscow deal) was the guilty plea of Kevin Clinesmith, based on conduct discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

In addition to those prosecutions, Mueller referred further Cohen charges to SDNY, Sam Patten for prosecution to DC, and Bijan Kian for prosecution in EDVA. Mueller charged Roger Stone and handed that prosecution off to DC. He further charged Konstantin Kilimnik, 12 IRA trolls, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, and 12 GRU officers. He referred Paul Manafort’s influence peddling partners, Republican and Democratic alike, for further investigation, leading to the failed prosecution of Greg Craig. Mueller referred 12 other matters — most still sealed — for further investigation, along with the Egyptian bribery investigation originally started in DC.

Meanwhile, Durham has never released a public budget, though by regulation he had to submit a budget request to DOJ in December.

Say what you will about Mueller’s investigation. But it was an investigation that showed real results. Durham, meanwhile, has been churning over the work that DOJ IG already did for as long as Mueller’s entire investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today marks the 857th day of the Durham investigation into the origins and conduct of the investigation that became the Mueller investigation.

Prosecutor John Durham has told a cyber lawyer -- who works for the firm that repped Clinton campaign -- that he wants to indict him on suspicion of lying about who he repped when he told F.B.I. in '16 about potential ties b/w Trump and Russia. https://nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/politics/durham-michael-sussmann-trump-russia.html

The incredibly weak facts underlying this potential charge of making a false statement (compare with, e.g., Flynn’s lies) tells you how desperate Durham is to find something to throw to the Trump crowd before he runs screaming and contemplates how he’s ruined his reputation

I just had to drop in to see the PeteF spin . . . No surprise!

The lie was that Sussmann claimed he was supplying the information to the FBI as a private citizen, having no affiliation with any political entity nor was he working for any client.

In fact, the information, which the indictment describes as, “non public data” from a “federal government research contract” came from a "contractor" that fits the role Fusion GPS had, and the abuse of NSA databases discovered by NSA Director Rogers and then reported in multiple FISA Court orders.

The indictment discusses the involvement of "Tech Executive- 1" who was working for the Clinton campaign (Glen Simpson) intimately involved in developing and then sharing this information with Sussmann and Sussamann's contacts with Simpson.

Maybe you should read the indictment and then go back and read my posts here about the spying being done in 2016 and how the Russia Hoax©® was really just the cover-up for all the illegal spying and then to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page . . . to try to get the illegal spying on some retroactive plausibly legal footing.

There are too many references to actions and events in the indictment that speak directly to the illegal harvest and use of NSA FISA §702 data, to allow one to think Durham's goal is just the false statement by Sussmann about his affiliations with those persons / entities that developed and shared the info.


Just keep thinking there's no there there.



.

Just keep thinking there's no there there.



.

There can't be any there there, because Hilary is a democrat.

Happy Constitution Day

We will see, it's a pretty sketchy single 1001 charge, the feds' bread and butter charge, often (and fairly) criticized as a tool to generate charges when no substantive charges can be found.

It's based on a face-to-face oral statement with one government witness, Baker who took no contemporaneous notes. The notes referred to are hearsay.

The 27-page indictment is, to my reading, performative and seemingly focused on delivering a narrative of Trump-as-victim rather than a necessary exposition about Sussman's alleged crime. It's a one-count 1001; that usually doesn't require so much verbiage.

A few legal issues of note: the statute requires the gov’t to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussman knew the statement was false & made it with an improper purpose, that the statement was actually false & that it was “material.” Can’t convict without all of that. And bad facts make bad law & that has happened with this statute in the past, 1st courts added a materiality requirement & more recently that defendant knew lying to agents was a crime. Given inconsistent treatment of Sussman & Mike Flynn, lots of risk on appeal to the gov’t.

I read most of the indictment, not a lot there. A single comment not recorded and witnessed by a single person. Good luck with that.

I think they have Durham running cover for the news coming out


Longtime GOP operatives charged with funneling Russian national’s money to Trump, RNC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"John Durham is the Jim Jordan of Ken Starrs"

Headline of the Year award goes to... @emptywheel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.lawfareblog.com/special-counsels-weird-prosecution-michael-sussmann

A good analysis of the recent indictment.

I do like the last paragraph

Indeed, none of what we think of as the fruits of the Russia investigation had anything to do with Clinton-world opposition research efforts. Not the Papadopoulos matter. Not the Michael Flynn investigation. Not the investigation of Paul Manafort and his business relationship with the Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. Not the indictment of Russian intelligence officers for hacking and dumping Democratic emails—all with the public endorsement of Donald J. Trump. Not the investigation of Roger Stone. And not the indictments of other Russian operatives for social media manipulations. The extensive findings of the Mueller report depend not a whiff on Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS.

Not even if Michael Sussmann lied to Jim Baker about his clients.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Durhams investigation will be a great success in MAGA circles just by using Hillary Clinton in a sentence..

It’s cat nip for the Trump cult
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder why Merrill Garland let the Durham investigation continue?

The Durham probe has not only done nothing to help Trump, it’s now backfired on him in a way that’s put the Alfa Bank Russian server back into the headlines.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder why Merrill Garland....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who?

who?

Autocorrect
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Drip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADIwK5rNUw

Drip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kADIwK5rNUw

What’s next bill maher as if Watters has an legitimate objective bone in his Body
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What’s next bill maher as if Watters has an legitimate objective bone in his Body

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WAAAAAAIIIIIITTTTT...AND YOU DO? :shocked:

Keep spinning
Half of the intel observations in the Steele Dossier have been confirmed.
Most of the rest are unverified, meaning they are neither true nor false.

There were 3 with errors (nationality of DNC hackers, other names), but mostly true.

Steele told the FBI that at best the raw intel was 70% accurate.

Much of Steele's intelligence is about Trump's views toward Russia and Russia policy being compromised by financial interests dangled before him by the Kremlin—not hacking or propaganda ops.
Mueller's report never addressed Trump's actual/attempted financial dealings in Russia—all of which he lied to U.S. voters about and all of which are now 100% confirmed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep spinning
Half of the intel observations in the Steele Dossier have been confirmed.
Most of the rest are unverified, meaning they are neither true nor false.

There were 3 with errors (nationality of DNC hackers, other names), but mostly true.

Steele told the FBI that at best the raw intel was 70% accurate.

Much of Steele's intelligence is about Trump's views toward Russia and Russia policy being compromised by financial interests dangled before him by the Kremlin—not hacking or propaganda ops.
Mueller's report never addressed Trump's actual/attempted financial dealings in Russia—all of which he lied to U.S. voters about and all of which are now 100% confirmed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good news...trump should be going to jail any day now as you've been predicting every day for countless years....

He asked three different foreign countries to interfere in our elections, and he extorted one of them by illegally withholding hundreds of millions of dollars. He wanted to overthrow the constitutional government and incited a deadly insurrection. And he is a free person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep spinning
Half of the intel observations in the Steele Dossier have been confirmed.
Most of the rest are unverified, meaning they are neither true nor false.

There were 3 with errors (nationality of DNC hackers, other names), but mostly true.

Steele told the FBI that at best the raw intel was 70% accurate.

Much of Steele's intelligence is about Trump's views toward Russia and Russia policy being compromised by financial interests dangled before him by the Kremlin—not hacking or propaganda ops.
Mueller's report never addressed Trump's actual/attempted financial dealings in Russia—all of which he lied to U.S. voters about and all of which are now 100% confirmed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“most of the rest are unverified”

yet they were used to violate the civil liberties of an american citizen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“most of the rest are unverified”

yet they were used to violate the civil liberties of an american citizen.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if we know that all intel dossiers have some inaccurate information and some uncorroborated or unprovable assertions; and Steele told the FBI his was 30% inaccurate; of course if the FBI cited the dossier, it was going to include some inaccuracies.
So perhaps the FBI should never be able to cite any intel in seeking a FISA warrant? Would the USIC be okay with that? DOJ? The FBI? Republicans? No, I don't think so.

The standard of proof in a FISA warrant is probable cause, and they're almost never denied.
In this case the warrant didn't just involve "a former Trump campaign adviser" (Carter Page) but a former Trump campaign adviser repeatedly suspected by the FBI in the past of working with Russian spies (and they had evidence, too!)
The man the FBI sought a warrant for had also been the subject of a prior CI probe.
(As had Trump's top Russia adviser, Dimitri Simes, BTW. Simes has since fled to Moscow, and now works for Putin.)

Then look at Manafort and Derispaska, millions of dollars in debt was forgiven when Manafort became campaign manager
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So if we know that all intel dossiers have some inaccurate information and some uncorroborated or unprovable assertions; and Steele told the FBI his was 30% inaccurate; of course if the FBI cited the dossier, it was going to include some inaccuracies.
So perhaps the FBI should never be able to cite any intel in seeking a FISA warrant? Would the USIC be okay with that? DOJ? The FBI? Republicans? No, I don't think so.

The standard of proof in a FISA warrant is probable cause, and they're almost never denied.
In this case the warrant didn't just involve "a former Trump campaign adviser" (Carter Page) but a former Trump campaign adviser repeatedly suspected by the FBI in the past of working with Russian spies (and they had evidence, too!)
The man the FBI sought a warrant for had also been the subject of a prior CI probe.
(As had Trump's top Russia adviser, Dimitri Simes, BTW. Simes has since fled to Moscow, and now works for Putin.)

Then look at Manafort and Derispaska, millions of dollars in debt was forgiven when Manafort became campaign manager
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the guy who put this dossier together, was arrested for lying to the fbi 5 times. the previous arrest was also for lying i think?

i have absolutely zero knowledge of such things, neither do you. maybe it’s standard process to rely on partly fabricated facts, put together as political opposition research, to get FISA warrants, and to fail to mention to the FISA court that you’re supporting data was political opposition research, which we now know involved multiple
lies to the FBI.

Maybe that’s par for the course. And maybe it’s not. I have no clue, and neither do you.

but you’ll assume it is, because the alternative ( that the democrats screwed up) is something you can’t begin to contemplate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He asked three different foreign countries to interfere in our elections, and he extorted one of them by illegally withholding hundreds of millions of dollars. He wanted to overthrow the constitutional government and incited a deadly insurrection. And he is a free person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

weird :angel:

Flynn lied to the FBI but that didn’t seem to matter .. and we all know why! So many excuses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Flynn lied to the FBI but that didn’t seem to matter .. and we all know why! So many excuses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently it does matter to you. But the lies that led to the Carter Page FISA warrant are OK by you.

The damage done by Durham to our intelligence capability will take years to repair.
Intelligence info is not evidence, if you wait for evidence you’ll be sifting thru the rubble from the next World Trade Center.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The damage done by Durham to our intelligence capability will take years to repair.
Intelligence info is not evidence, if you wait for evidence you’ll be sifting thru the rubble from the next World Trade Center.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The damage done by our intelligence agencies may never be repaired. It may shape us in directions it chooses which may transform our system of government.

The damage done by our intelligence agencies may never be repaired. It may shape us in directions it chooses which may transform our system of government.

Oh yea, the deep state.

Durham actually wants you to believe the Steele Dossier is the basis for Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller probe, the Page FISA, the Magna Carta, Daylight Saving Time, the tides, and the basis for the strong nuclear force that holds all matter - and therefore reality - together.

I don’t know what kind of propagandist you have to be to fall for the ruse that opposition research Russians exploited does away with the Russian intelligence operation Trump enthusiastically embraced.

Oh yea, the deep state.

Durham actually wants you to believe the Steele Dossier is the basis for Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller probe, the Page FISA, the Magna Carta, Daylight Saving Time, the tides, and the basis for the strong nuclear force that holds all matter - and therefore reality - together.

I don’t know what kind of propagandist you have to be to fall for the ruse that opposition research Russians exploited does away with the Russian intelligence operation Trump enthusiastically embraced.

Uh . . . Oh yea, the deep state and its sneaky lying methods (including huge doses of persistent propaganda) existed long before Trump and will continue long after unless it's checked.

Apparently it does matter to you. But the lies that led to the Carter Page FISA warrant are OK by you.

Was carter page charged NOPE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was carter page charged NOPE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Carter Page was not charged because he was not the target and the FBI knew he was not guilty of anything. Which makes the lying to the Court to get the warrant on Page even more deceptive. But it's OK by you to lie in order to get what was in itself an unlawful warrant in order to actually spy on other Americans beyond Page whom the FBI had no legal reason to be spying on which is why a FISA warrant could not have been granted to spy on them.

It was a total distortion of the process that is supposed to protect all of us, not just an isolated case of someone who supposedly lied to the FBI, but actually didn't commit any other crime than that supposed lie and it was known by the FBI that the conversation he supposedly lied about was perfectly legal which made the FBI interrogation as flagrantly corrupt as the lie given to the FISA Court.

It was hard enough to get the FISA process approved because of the grave danger to American citizens if the government was allowed to spy on any of us without extremely solid protection against government abusing our rights and liberties. We were guarantied that the FISA process would protect our rights and liberties from tyrannical invasion of our personal privacy. To so blatantly disregard that protection and get away with it without substantial penalty, and even without loud complaints and demands from the people of this country for the prosecution of all those involved, while at the same time demanding that someone not guilty of a crime for which he was being interrogated, but guilty only of a "process" crime of lying (to interrogators who lied to him) which was not relevant to anything other than that it was false and of no consequence beyond that, be prosecuted to the full extent of the law is all not only an egregiously unbalanced and probably politicized view, but it is even more of a threat to our liberties when the citizens care so little that when government can so easily, without our reproach, trample on those liberties at will. And merely by telling a lie. And when we on the other hand cheer when the government prosecutes a citizen for no other crime than telling it an inconsequential lie.

Durham actually wants you to believe the Steele Dossier is the basis for Crossfire Hurricane, the Mueller probe, the Page FISA, the Magna Carta, Daylight Saving Time, the tides, and the basis for the strong nuclear force that holds all matter - and therefore reality - together.

I don’t know what kind of propagandist you have to be to fall for the ruse



pete vomits propaganda (as usual).... then calls someone else a propagandist....

this is tooooo funny....

Pete, the Steele dossier was one of the supporting documents provided by the FBI to the FISA court. We now know it was garbage, we now know the FBI knew it was political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, and we know the FBI didn’t reveal
any of this to the FISA court.

I don’t know if that’s a big deal or not, and unless you have experience with these FISA courts, neither do you. But if you’re ok with the Justice Department doing this to a conservative, I hope you’re on when it’s done to a liberal.

That Hilary paid for opposition research on trump is no biggie. it’s what they did with it, the media was all over that dossier at first, and not many have apologized for spreading baseless smear. because they’re in the bag for hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep spinning
Half of the intel observations in the Steele Dossier have been confirmed.
Most of the rest are unverified, meaning they are neither true nor false.

There were 3 with errors (nationality of DNC hackers, other names), but mostly true.

Steele told the FBI that at best the raw intel was 70% accurate.

Much of Steele's intelligence is about Trump's views toward Russia and Russia policy being compromised by financial interests dangled before him by the Kremlin—not hacking or propaganda ops.
Mueller's report never addressed Trump's actual/attempted financial dealings in Russia—all of which he lied to U.S. voters about and all of which are now 100% confirmed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was and is some correct intelligence in the Steele dossier.
Trump did have deals in Russia and lied about it, plenty more will come out eventually.
You ought to wonder why he pardoned Manafort
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump did have deals in Russia and lied about it, plenty more will come out eventually.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah, there's hardly been any attention to or investigation of to this point...maybe they'll find something somewhere

Apparently it does matter to you. But the lies that led to the Carter Page FISA warrant are OK by you.

Was Carter Page charged with a Crime? if he wasn't then the system worked as designed.:kewl:

Pete, the Steele dossier was one of the supporting documents provided by the FBI to the FISA court. We now know it was garbage, we now know the FBI knew it was political opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign, and we know the FBI didn’t reveal
any of this to the FISA court.

I don’t know if that’s a big deal or not, and unless you have experience with these FISA courts, neither do you. But if you’re ok with the Justice Department doing this to a conservative, I hope you’re on when it’s done to a liberal.

That Hilary paid for opposition research on trump is no biggie. it’s what they did with it, the media was all over that dossier at first, and not many have apologized for spreading baseless smear. because they’re in the bag for hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier but but Hillary
Representatives for the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online news site, informed congressional investigators Friday the outlet had originally funded the research firm that created the salacious dossier containing allegations of ties between Donald Trump's campaign and Russian operatives, the publication said

why is this always absent in this conversation ?

Was Carter Page charged with a Crime? if he wasn't then the system worked as designed.:kewl:

No, the system was designed so that those applying for a FISA warrant must tell the truth. That they must not lie. And that those who did not follow the systems rules must be prosecuted for breaking the law.

The system was not designed to unlawfully request and get a FISA warrant on someone who was not being investigated, nor was guilty of anything, in order to sneakily use it, AGAINST the system design, as a back door to spy on others who it would not be possible to get FISA warrants to spy on.

The system was totally trashed. The law was egregiously broken. There was insignificant price that the guilty law breakers paid. An innocent person was put through hell, had his reputation destroyed, and it all showed that the rest of us are not protected from abuse of the system. That the system does not, as designed, protect us, you and me, all Americans, who are not guilty, from illegal, unconstitutional government breach of our individual right to privacy and from the personal destruction of our character and financial well being, if the government wishes it to be so.

Either the system did not work as designed, or it was designed with treacherous hidden government fail safes which enable it to do to us what it promised could not be done to us when Congress approved of the FISA process to "safeguard" us from government tyranny.

The system was not designed to unlawfully request and get a FISA warrant on someone who was not being investigated
The FISA warrant was so the FBI could INVESTIGATE him.

Seems like the IG found sufficient justification for the initial warrant and neither the IG or Republican led investigation found no evidence of political bias influencing their behavior, even if mistakes had been made.

Seems



^^^^^favorite word

^^^^^favorite word
If it helps you just remove the seems like and capitalize The.

The FISA warrant was so the FBI could INVESTIGATE him.

Seems like the IG found sufficient justification for the initial warrant and neither the IG or Republican led investigation found no evidence of political bias influencing their behavior, even if mistakes had been made.

There were 4 FISA warrants re Page. The DOJ found the last two were invalid.

The FBI used the Steele Dossier as verified probable cause--none of the Page allegations in the dossier had been validated by the FBI when they were presented to the FISA court as probable cause. It was a lie.

The FBI withheld from the FISA court key details that would have undercut the dossier’s credibility, including a warning from a top Justice Department official that Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the Democratic National Committee. The FBI also deceived the FISA court by wrongly claiming that Steele’s prior informant work had been “used in criminal proceedings” by the Justice Department.

They supposedly "investigated" Page for a year, already being aware that he had helped them previously to convict Evgeny Buryakov in a conspiracy to work For Russian Intelligence.

If they were actually "investigating" Page, it would have been easy to find that he had also helped the CIA vs Russia.

FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed that the Justice Department and the FBI illegally surveilled Carter Page.

The FBI, the brilliant Sherlockians they're reputed to be, undoubtedly knew they had no probable cause for surveilling Page and had to fudge there FISA requests to get their warrants.

Unless they were particularly dense in their supposed "investigation" of Carter Page, it wouldn't have taken them a year to find that his connections to Russia were legitimate, and that he was no Russian agent. But they could sure use Carter's association with Trump to secretly surveil the Trump Campaign.

One would think that those concerned with saving "our democracy" would fear that these kind of deep state shenanigans are a threat to it.

A sprawling report released in 2020 by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election.

It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.

So there were plenty of reasons to investigate the Trump campaign and just why did Trump pardon Manafort who had millions of dollars in debt forgiven by a Russian Oligarch when he became Trump campaign manager
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The FBI lied and misrepresented in order to surveil Carter Page. Carter Page was illegally surveilled. That is not innuendo. That is not conjecture. That is not speculation. That is not propaganda. That is not political posturing. That is not partisan bull$hit. It is the truth.

there were plenty of reasons to investigate the Trump campaign and just why did Trump pardon Manafort who had millions of dollars in debt forgiven by a Russian Oligarch when he became Trump campaign manager
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete still holding strong to the fairly tale he was sold and continues to read to himself before bed each night.....:read: and mean old orange man went to jail for ever and ever...THE END :happy:

Andy McCarthy has been pretty consistent on this and sums up things...hope they don't find any Democratic Party operative that magically suicides themselves

"Justice Department special counsel John Durham has indicted Igor Danchenko, the principal sub-source for the discredited “Steele dossier,” which was relied on by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants in its investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign.

Durham alleges that Danchenko falsely denied to the FBI that some of the information he supplied for the dossier came from a long-time Democratic Party operative who is not identified by name in the indictment.


Moreover, Danchenko is also alleged to have falsely claimed that he had been told of a well-developed “conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Kremlin officials by a man identified in the indictment as president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce.

In Ball of Collusion, my 2019 book on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, I summarized media reports fingering Sergey Millian, who founded this portentous-sounding but sketchy “Chamber.” I pointed out that Millian did not appear to have the kind of relationship with Donald Trump that he would know of such a “conspiracy of cooperation” if it were true, and that Steele himself had confided in friends that he worried Millian was an unreliable “big talker.”

If Durham’s allegations are borne out, it would mean that Millian was not talking at all — at least on this subject. Danchenko was making it up, according to the indictment.

Filed today in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, the indictment charges Danchenko with five counts of lying to federal investigators — specifically in several 2017 interviews by the FBI. Each charge carries a potential term of up to five years’ imprisonment.

Danchenko is a U.S.-based Russian national who, among other things, worked for the Brookings Institution in Washington. In particular, he worked at Brookings with foreign-relations and national-security expert Fiona Hill — who later worked in President Trump’s National Security Council and, coincidentally, was a key witness in the first Trump impeachment (related to the Ukraine controversy, which was unrelated to the Trump/Russia “collusion” investigation). As the Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross observes, it was Hill who introduced Danchenko to Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was retained by the Hillary Clinton campaign to generate the Steele dossier.

The campaign was represented by the Perkins-Coie law firm, which retained Fusion-GPS, an intelligence firm that specializes in political-opposition research. Fusion’s co-founder, Glenn Simpson, recruited Steele for the Clinton campaign’s Trump-Russia research project. Steele got much of the information from Danchenko, with whom he had a preexisting professional relationship (through Steele’s London-based intelligence firm, Orbis).

As I’ve previously detailed, Durham appears to be operating from the premise that the Trump-Russia narrative, in which Trump was framed as a clandestine agent of Vladimir Putin’s regime, was manufactured by the Clinton campaign, which generated the dossier and peddled its information to the media and the government. This enabled the campaign to argue to the electorate not only that Trump was a Putin puppet but that the FBI was investigating him over it.


In September, Durham indicted Perkins-Coie partner Michael Sussmann for allegedly lying to the FBI in connection with an allegation that a major Russian financial institution, Alfa Bank, was a conduit for covert Internet communications between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign. Specifically, Durham alleges that Sussmann falsely told the FBI’s general counsel that he was not representing any client in bringing Alfa Bank information to the FBI; in reality, according to the indictment, he was working for the Clinton campaign and for a tech executive who was expecting a job in the anticipated Clinton administration.

Sussmann resigned from Perkins-Coie after he was indicted. His case is separate from Danchenko’s — they are indicted in the same investigation, but they are not co-defendants.

For the next few days, expect the new Washington parlor game to be identifying the Democratic Party operative who was allegedly a source for Danchenko’s dossier claims. The indictment alleges that “PR Executive-1” had strong Russian contacts — organizing events in Moscow and interacting with Russian nationals."

No, the system was designed so that those applying for a FISA warrant must tell the truth. That they must not lie. And that those who did not follow the systems rules must be prosecuted for breaking the law.

Are you suggesting the FBI knew it was a lie from the beginning ?

The system was not designed to unlawfully request and get a FISA warrant on someone who was not being investigated, nor was guilty of anything, in order to sneakily use it, AGAINST the system design, as a back door to spy on others who it would not be possible to get FISA warrants to spy on.

Again you are making claims that this was done illegally and with the knowledge that the information was not creditable . and every one was in on it.

The system was totally trashed. The law was egregiously broken. There was insignificant price that the guilty law breakers paid. An innocent person was put through hell, had his reputation destroyed, and it all showed that the rest of us are not protected from abuse of the system. That the system does not, as designed, protect us, you and me, all Americans, who are not guilty, from illegal, unconstitutional government breach of our individual right to privacy and from the personal destruction of our character and financial well being, if the government wishes it to be so.

What price should they have Paid? tens of thousands of Americans are wrongfully accused charged pay life savings for a defence and get found Not guilty .. they get no reimbursement Paige was just investigated no more no less


Either the system did not work as designed, thats about the sum of it or it was designed with treacherous hidden government fail safes which enable it to do to us what it promised could not be done to us when Congress approved of the FISA process to "safeguard" us from government tyranny.

the rest it just your usual trip down the conspiracy rabbit hole

Are you suggesting the FBI knew it was a lie from the beginning ?

Yes. The FBI knew that the parts of the Steele Dossier regarding Carter Page was not verified. They knew that the information given to the FISA court was supposed to be verified. They knew that it was a lie to submit unverified information to the court.

Again you are making claims that this was done illegally and with the knowledge that the information was not creditable . and every one was in on it.

Yes. It was illegal to submit unverified information to the court to get a FISA warrant. Those who did it represent the entire FBI. Those who were in on it were culpable and put the integrity of the FBI on the line as well as contributing to the cancerous growth of corrupting and weakening the safeguard that the FISA Court process is supposed to give all American citizens.

What price should they have Paid? tens of thousands of Americans are wrongfully accused charged pay life savings for a defence and get found Not guilty .. they get no reimbursement Paige was just investigated no more no less

At the least, all who were in on it should have been fired. And they should have suffered the same legal consequences as those who are prosecuted for lying to the FBI.

The rest it just your usual trip down the conspiracy rabbit hole

The whole "investigation" was a trip down the conspiracy rabbit hole. With greater consequences to the stability of "our democracy" than any rabbit hole you think I'm tripping down.

And down in that rabbit hole.........

Manafort and Gates being convicted of numerous white collar felonies, many tied to Russian proxies, was not a fraud.

Flynn, Stone and Coffee Boy being convicted of perjury was not a fraud.

Trump conspiring to suborn perjury was not a fraud.

And down in that rabbit hole.........

Manafort and Gates being convicted of numerous white collar felonies, many tied to Russian proxies, was not a fraud.

They got convicted of crimes.

Flynn, Stone and Coffee Boy being convicted of perjury was not a fraud.

They got convicted of crime.

Trump conspiring to suborn perjury was not a fraud.

That has yet to be proven.

So is that all supposed to make it OK for the FBI to get an illegal warrant on Carter Page. Should all those involved in getting that warrant be convicted of a crime?

Do you approve of what the FBI did?

Do you think it is a danger to "our democracy" when the FBI commits such crimes?

So your concern is that of the Carter Page FISA apps half were within the rules, half were not.

Guess you’re finding out that it’s pretty hard to charge a police officer with a crime in the USA since they could have believed the search constitutionally compliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your concern is that of the Carter Page FISA apps half were within the rules, half were not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which half were within the rules and what about them was actually legitimately probable cause for a warrant? The Steele Dossier was instrumental for all the warrants including the first two. McCabe said that the FISA warrants would not have been granted without the Dossier. The FBI did not validate the information in the Dossier regarding Page. It was only the information re Page that was critical to using the Dossier as probable cause. The rest of the Dossier would not have been cause to determine a warrant on Page. Ergo, the information in the Dossier was not legally usable as probable cause

DOJ said the final two warrants were invalid. At the time they made that claim they had not made a determination on the validity of the first two, so they were not saying they were valid. And even if the DOJ had eventually determined that the first two warrants were valid, the surveillance on Page should have stopped with the last two invalid applications.

My concern, as you put it, is that lying criminals within the FBI should at least face the same consequences as those who lie to the FBI. Actually, lying FBI criminals should face even harsher penalties. Their actions put "our democracy" in greater danger than common criminals who lie to the FBI. Actually, even greater danger than the uncommon criminals who lie to the FBI. If we the people don't demand that the FBI, as well as all government agencies, stay within the rules that we bind them, then we grant them a pass to step all over our rights and lead us into a banana republic "democracy"--or worse.

Facts: The FBI’s surveillance was conducted after Page stopped working for the campaign. The OIG review found that certain factual assertions relied upon in the FISA applications were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed, and the review uncovered unprofessional conduct by a low-level FBI lawyer. However, the DOJ did not determine that leadership or the FISA court would have reached a different decision had they known all relevant information, and did not find that the conduct affected the overall validity of the applications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Under questioning from Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, Wray, who deflected many questions by referring lawmakers back to Horowitz’s report, agreed that Page was surveilled illegally.


“The report acknowledges that ... this was illegal surveillance with respect to at least several of these FISA applications, because there was not probable cause or proper predication, correct?” Ratcliffe asked.

“Right,” Wray replied.

Ratcliffe was referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revelation that, in the wake of Horowitz’s report, the DOJ told the FISA court it believed the final two Page FISA warrants were invalid but were still reviewing the first two. The FBI also told the court it was trying to sequester all the information obtained through the Page FISA warrants.

Judge James Boasberg, the FISA court’s presiding judge, quoted the DOJ as saying that by the third and fourth warrants against Page, “if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

Boasberg said that “the Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court's authorizations” related to the April 2017 and June 2017 Page FISA renewals “were not valid.” Thus far, the DOJ has not reached a public decision on the initial October 2016 FISA application or the January 2017 renewal.

Lots of verbiage doesn’t change this
the DOJ did not determine that leadership or the FISA court would have reached a different decision had they known all relevant information, and did not find that the conduct affected the overall validity of the applications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of verbiage doesn’t change this
the DOJ did not determine that leadership or the FISA court would have reached a different decision had they known all relevant information, and did not find that the conduct affected the overall validity of the applications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And that the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee found the surveillance to be justified.

i think we should look at everyone who’s in prison. if they are a registered democrats, we should set them free, because it’s not possible they did anything wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of verbiage doesn’t change this
the DOJ did not determine that leadership or the FISA court would have reached a different decision had they known all relevant information, and did not find that the conduct affected the overall validity of the applications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your above verbiage of "facts" is a 2019 version. Different facts (such as Wray's agreeing that Carter was illegally surveiled) have been uncovered since then. And more are being uncovered by Durham.

i think we should look at everyone who’s in prison. if they are a registered democrats, we should set them free, because it’s not possible they did anything wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, but remember TFG just pardoned Republicans

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted in 2018 on federal bank and tax fraud charges, pleaded guilty to more federal conspiracy charges, and was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison. Trump granted Manafort a full pardon in December 2020.
Former campaign chief Steve Bannon was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in connection with a scheme to defraud donors to fund a wall at the US southern border. Trump pardoned Bannon in January 2021 before he could face trial.
Informal Trump adviser and "fixer" Roger Stone was convicted on seven counts on obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering in connection to the Mueller probe and was sentenced to three years in prison. Trump commuted Stone's sentence in July 2020 and fully pardoned him in December 2020.
Deputy Trump campaign manager Rick Gates, a longtime top associate of Manafort, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and false statements and received only a 45-day sentence thanks to his extensive cooperation with investigators in the Mueller probe. He did not get a presidential pardon.
Trump's short-lived National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI in connection with the Mueller probe. Flynn, who went on to push conspiracy theories about non-existent fraud in the 2020 election, received a full pardon from Trump in November 2020.
Longtime Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to tax fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, and lying to Congress in 2018, and was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Cohen, who turned on Trump after pleading guilty and cooperated with prosecutors, did not get a pardon.
Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection to the Mueller probe and served 14 days in federal prison.
Trump Inaugural Committee chairman Tom Barrack was charged with federal crimes including unlawful lobbying, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to investigators in July 2021.

Your above verbiage of "facts" is a 2019 version. Different facts (such as Wray's agreeing that Carter was illegally surveiled) have been uncovered since then. And more are being uncovered by Durham.

but the 2019 view paints the democrats in the most favorable light, so we prefer to stick with that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your above verbiage of "facts" is a 2019 version. Different facts (such as Wray's agreeing that Carter was illegally surveiled) have been uncovered since then. And more are being uncovered by Durham.

So far Durham has not amounted to #^&#^&#^&#^&.

After years he has come up with a couple of indictments focused on peripheral characters flubbing details that would not have altered the main focus of the Russia investigation.

Congress referred two of Trump’s sons, his top political adviser, one of his top national security advisers, and one of his top campaign officials to DOJ for criminal prosecution for perjury and making false statements under 18 USC §1001.

And the DOJ? Under Trump Attorney General Bill Barr’s watchful eye, ignored all of these referrals.

Congress had evidence that Hope Hicks, Trump’s closest aide, had also lied. There was evidence of lies from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen—who later revealed he’d been instructed to lie by Trump lawyers—and even Trump himself, who gave written answers to Mueller.

The DOJ did nothing.

When the DOJ did act, longtime Trump friend and adviser Roger Stone received major criminal convictions—which Trump immediately annulled via commutation and pardon.

Convictions for lying by 2016 Trump campaign manager and thirty-year acquaintance Paul Manafort—who was under contract with a Kremlin agent to advance Vladimir Putin’s interests in the U.S. when he secretly delivered proprietary targeting data to Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign? These too were soon obliterated by a Trump pardon. Did Jared Kushner need some rewarding for lying to Congress and Mueller on his father-in-law’s behalf? Sure he did—so Trump pardoned Kushner’s dad, Charles.

All the while the Trump DOJ sat by, lied to by everyone in the Trump's entourage and without any consequence whatsoever. It took no action to protect the rule of law.

But there was one exception to all of this prosecutorial ignorance, with Trump breathing down Barr’s neck he installed Durham as a Special Counsel to hold Trump’s enemies to account in a way that no ally of Trump ever had been.

So far Durham has not amounted to #^&#^&#^&#^&.

After years he has come up with a couple of indictments focused on peripheral characters flubbing details that would not have altered the main focus of the Russia investigation.

Congress referred two of Trump’s sons, his top political adviser, one of his top national security advisers, and one of his top campaign officials to DOJ for criminal prosecution for perjury and making false statements under 18 USC §1001.

And the DOJ? Under Trump Attorney General Bill Barr’s watchful eye, ignored all of these referrals.

Congress had evidence that Hope Hicks, Trump’s closest aide, had also lied. There was evidence of lies from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen—who later revealed he’d been instructed to lie by Trump lawyers—and even Trump himself, who gave written answers to Mueller.

The DOJ did nothing.

When the DOJ did act, longtime Trump friend and adviser Roger Stone received major criminal convictions—which Trump immediately annulled via commutation and pardon.

Convictions for lying by 2016 Trump campaign manager and thirty-year acquaintance Paul Manafort—who was under contract with a Kremlin agent to advance Vladimir Putin’s interests in the U.S. when he secretly delivered proprietary targeting data to Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign? These too were soon obliterated by a Trump pardon. Did Jared Kushner need some rewarding for lying to Congress and Mueller on his father-in-law’s behalf? Sure he did—so Trump pardoned Kushner’s dad, Charles.

All the while the Trump DOJ sat by, lied to by everyone in the Trump's entourage and without any consequence whatsoever. It took no action to protect the rule of law.

But there was one exception to all of this prosecutorial ignorance, with Trump breathing down Barr’s neck he installed Durham as a Special Counsel to hold Trump’s enemies to account in a way that no ally of Trump ever had been.

You always have to change everything into being about Trump. I was talking about what the FBI did to Carter Page. You are frantically worried about what someone who is not that much longer for this earth being a danger to "democracy." But, so long as it might somehow, no matter how minimally, damage your need to totally eradicate Trump, it's no concern for you that an entrenched agency within "our democracy" that will be around way longer than Trump, and has a checkered history of politicization, lying, and bullying American citizens, can chip away at our constitutional and civil liberties.

You always have to change everything into being about Trump. I was talking about what the FBI did to Carter Page. You are frantically worried about what someone who is not that much longer for this earth being a danger to "democracy." But, so long as it might somehow, no matter how minimally, damage your need to totally eradicate Trump, it's no concern for you that an entrenched agency within "our democracy" that will be around way longer than Trump, and has a checkered history of politicization, lying, and bullying American citizens, can chip away at our constitutional and civil liberties.

Sorry but Durham has quite literally done what was done to Carter Page to Danchenko, after Barr’s DOJ ignored the same crimes committed by the Trump administration and his toadies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry but Durham has quite literally done what was done to Carter Page to Danchenko, after Barr’s DOJ ignored the same crimes committed by the Trump administration and his toadies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you disapprove of what was done to Carter Page?

So you disapprove of what was done to Carter Page?

I would much rather see an IG conduct percentage inspections for compliance of FISA applications than the current political game of gotcha.

I would much rather see an IG conduct percentage inspections for compliance of FISA applications than the current political game of gotcha.

Ah yes . . . improve internal procedures . . . kinda what has been going on for a long time . . . We'll get better . . . more oversight . . . more rules . . . (You have met “people”, haven’t you?) . . . you would much rather not be bothered about Carter Page . . . unless it somehow helps to nail Trump . . . then F regulations.

Ah yes . . . improve internal procedures . . . kinda what has been going on for a long time . . . We'll get better . . . more oversight . . . more rules . . . (You have met “people”, haven’t you?) . . . you would much rather not be bothered about Carter Page . . . unless it somehow helps to nail Trump . . . then F regulations.

Trump will get the prosecution he deserves, the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine.
I’m patient

Paul Gosar’s sister is on CNN right now begging elected leaders to remove her brother from Congress

“He has conspired against the United States government.”

- Jennifer Gosar
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump will get the prosecution he deserves, the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine.
I’m patient

Paul Gosar’s sister is on CNN right now begging elected leaders to remove her brother from Congress

“He has conspired against the United States government.”

- Jennifer Gosar
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One note Pete keeps playing for us his mesmerizing monorhythmic tune that insists with never wavering tunnel vision what is precisely the actual threat to "our democracy." Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Inflation is through the roof . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! The border is overwhelmed and can't be controlled . . .Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Crime is on the rise . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Covid is still killing thousands of people and has new variants in spite of Biden doing a great job of containing it . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! China is ramping up its threat to Taiwan . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Carter Page is illegally surveilled by the FBI . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump is a foreign agent. Trump is Putin's puppet. Mueller will indict Trump . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! The House and Senate will impeach and remove him . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! The House and Senate will for sure do it this time . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Cohen will bring Trump down . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Stormy Daniels will get Trump . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump will be convicted . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump will be prosecuted . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Biden falls asleep and Farts . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

But, alas, the wheels of justice grind slowly . . . Trump . . . . . . . Trump . . . .

Meanwhile, the world moves on, tending in its usual inefficient, corrupt, plodding, lurching, criminal, basically imperfect and often disgusting but sometimes pleasant, loving, or even brilliant human way. But, not to be distracted by marginal human events, wondrously implacable one note Pete must keep reminding us, lest we forget, to keep our eye on the real prize--the extermination of the root of all evil . . . Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

And unwittingly or not, you work to enable the man who would be king

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her November 9 ruling properly rejecting Trump’s baseless claims of executive privilege.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And unwittingly or not, you work to enable the man who would be king

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her November 9 ruling properly rejecting Trump’s baseless claims of executive privilege.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How am I enabling Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

Durham is juggling live hand grenades in this indictment and the last one.
He wants to win convictions on narrow interpretations of contradictory evidence to try to prop up a fraudulent narrative that will fall apart under scrutiny.
There is no longer any doubt that Trump and Manafort and others were criminally conspiring with Russian agents and the Russian government.
The mystery is why they aren’t being prosecuted.

Durham is juggling live hand grenades in this indictment and the last one.
He wants to win convictions on narrow interpretations of contradictory evidence to try to prop up a fraudulent narrative that will fall apart under scrutiny.
There is no longer any doubt that Trump and Manafort and others were criminally conspiring with Russian agents and the Russian government.
The mystery is why they aren’t being prosecuted.

Durham is conspiring with Putin. Durham is Trump's puppet. It's all about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

Everything comes back to Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

Durham is conspiring with Putin. Durham is Trump's puppet. It's all about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

Everything comes back to Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump . . .

what are the chances Durham next nothing burgers conventely show up before the mid terms :huh:

what are the chances Durham next nothing burgers conventely show up before the mid terms :huh:

timing is everything....

The defense team for a cybersecurity lawyer who was indicted in September by a Trump-era special counsel asked a judge on Monday to set a trial date sooner than the prosecutor wants — while disclosing evidence recently turned over to them that appears to contradict the charge.

The materials could make it harder for the special counsel, John H. Durham, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cybersecurity lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is guilty of the charge against him: making a false statement to the F.B.I. during a September 2016 meeting about possible links between Donald J. Trump and Russia.

The newly disclosed evidence consists of records of two Justice Department interviews of the former F.B.I. official to whom Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying, each of which offers a different version of the key interaction than the version in the indictment. That official is the prosecution’s main witness.

The existence of the evidence, which Mr. Durham’s team provided to Mr. Sussmann’s team last week, “only underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment and the importance of setting a prompt trial date so that Mr. Sussmann can vindicate himself as soon as possible,” the defense lawyers wrote.

While Mr. Durham wants to wait until July 25 to start the trial, they said, the defense team urged the judge to set a start date of May 2.

The defense team for a cybersecurity lawyer who was indicted in September by a Trump-era special counsel asked a judge on Monday to set a trial date sooner than the prosecutor wants — while disclosing evidence recently turned over to them that appears to contradict the charge.

The materials could make it harder for the special counsel, John H. Durham, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cybersecurity lawyer, Michael Sussmann, is guilty of the charge against him: making a false statement to the F.B.I. during a September 2016 meeting about possible links between Donald J. Trump and Russia.

The newly disclosed evidence consists of records of two Justice Department interviews of the former F.B.I. official to whom Mr. Sussmann is accused of lying, each of which offers a different version of the key interaction than the version in the indictment. That official is the prosecution’s main witness.

The existence of the evidence, which Mr. Durham’s team provided to Mr. Sussmann’s team last week, “only underscores the baseless and unprecedented nature of this indictment and the importance of setting a prompt trial date so that Mr. Sussmann can vindicate himself as soon as possible,” the defense lawyers wrote.

While Mr. Durham wants to wait until July 25 to start the trial, they said, the defense team urged the judge to set a start date of May 2.

John Durham pushed back on Michael Sussmann’s claims:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/john-durham-says-evidence-shows-michael-sussmann-lied-when-pushing-trump-russia-claims/ar-AARC3Hd

Adventures in Cut-and-Paste: John Durham says, “no specific client” is the same as, "not doing this for any client"

John Durham’s team has responded to Michael Sussmann’s request for a May trial date with a bunch of mostly nonsense.

AUSA Andrew DeFilippis does the following:

Blows off Susssmann’s observation that Durham promises to be ready for Igor Danchenko’s EDVA trial, which will involve far more complex classification issues, in April, even while saying classified discovery is what requires a later trial date in this case.
Does not deny Durham only belatedly provided Brady, while accusing Sussmann of “cherry-picking excerpts,” when Durham is the one providing excerpts.
Complains that Sussmann doesn’t note “law enforcement reports of Mr. Baker’s subsequent three interviews with the Special Counsel’s Office in which he affirmed and then re-affirmed his now-clear recollection of the defendant’s false statement,” which seems to suggest that like the one fragment already provided (which shows at least one sign of irregularity), Durham is claiming interview reports are more accurate than transcripts.
Complains that Sussmann didn’t mention a second potentially inadmissible hearsay document, written by someone else in the General Counsel’s office.
Accuses Sussmann of neglecting to mention a CIA report about a different meeting that Sussmann already discussed at length (indeed, Durham was the one withholding information on it when last it came up) — and which Durham admitted was based off notes that have been destroyed.
Mentions “three grand jury transcripts” but doesn’t describe any of them as Baker’s.
Invokes “serious national security equities” in a case that criminalizes reporting a cybersecurity concern.
To look on Durham’s case in the best light: After Baker reviewed notes that others took, he came to remember that Sussmann affirmatively said he was not representing a client at the meeting (though Durham doesn’t claim to have the specific words Sussmann said, nor does he quote any in his discussion of the three other 302s).

And Durham does not deny that he’s slow-walking Brady material.

But I want to look at DeFillippis’ cut-and-paste again. In the response to Sussmann, DeFillippis suggests that this second hearsay document from someone in his office matches the first, Bill Priestap’s notes taken immediately after the meeting.

Those notes, like the notes cited in the Indictment taken by an FBI Assistant Director, reflect that the defendant told Baker he had “no specific client.” [my emphasis]

Except that’s not what the indictment says Priestap’s notes say. Those say:

Michael Sussman[n] — Atty: [Perkins Coie] — said not doing this for any client

Represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.
“Not doing this for any client,” and “no specific client,” are undoubtedly close, but they are not the same thing, particularly given the great stake Durham and others have placed on whether Sussmann believed he was doing something important for cyber security, particularly given that neither mentions billing or representing. The differences suggest that even in these near-contemporaneous records taken by professional note-takers of what Baker said, either he himself was not consistent in the language he used to relay what happened, or the meaning his interlocutors took from it was not. Probably that’s because none of them accorded it the great import that Durham has, in part because they were all trying hard to deal with a very real cyberattack by Russia.

And remember there still are unanswered questions about the Alfa Bank investigation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As usual, Pete has it all figured out.

As soon as Trump said “I have no deals in Russia” the Russians knew they had him.
They knew and had the proof that he was making deals in Russia with Putin’s people and sanctioned banks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As soon as Trump said “I have no deals in Russia” the Russians knew they had him.
They knew and had the proof that he was making deals in Russia with Putin’s people and sanctioned banks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure he'll be behind bars quite soon....

As soon as Trump said “I have no deals in Russia” the Russians knew they had him.
They knew and had the proof that he was making deals in Russia with Putin’s people and sanctioned banks.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

like when you said Juicy Smulier was exonerated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

"Of course he's been exonerated now"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124

like when you said Juicy Smulier was exonerated

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

"Of course he's been exonerated now"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124

that’s pete for you, always wrong, yet never in doubt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny watching the Durham sinking life boat with his fans clinging to its sides still hoping he’ll find the missing part to the bilge pump and save them from being gullible again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny watching the Durham sinking life boat with his fans clinging to its sides still hoping he’ll find the missing part to the bilge pump and save them from being gullible again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what are the chances Durham's next nothing burgers conveniently show up before the mid terms? :as:

what are the chances Durham's next nothing burgers conveniently show up before the mid terms? :as:

That’s the plan, isn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collusion?
https://nypost.com/2022/02/13/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-tech-workers-to-dig-up-donald-trump-russia-connections/

Criminals should be held accountable
Isn’t that what is said right here on this forum?
I’m amazed how people can put her on a pedestal
Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No collusion (Though I heard that’s not a crime) just amplification of a false story by right wing media

Various reports on revelations by Special Counsel Durham contain egregious errors. First and foremost, the new filing by Durham never says the Clinton campaign or its lawyers paid a tech company for anything.
Durham never said the tech executive cited in the filing “infiltrated” any Trump or White House server. That was taken from a quote of a former Congressional aide working for Devin Nunes’s committee.
The Clinton campaign obviously didn’t exist when Trump became president and there is no mention in the Durham filing that the Clinton campaign was involved in anything having to do with White House servers.
In fact, the filing says the tech firm only had access to White House servers and data because it was asked by the Trump White House to provide services.
The tech firm and its executive have never been accused of crimes and have not been charged. The executive works to uncover cybercrimes. Michael Sussman was the attorney for the tech executive mentioned in the filing. Sussman took information to both the FBI and CIA.
The filing says the Clinton campaign hired a “investigative firm” known for years to be Fusion GPS. It is not a tech company. It did opposition research. The filing does not reveal to what extent Fusion GPS was aware of the tech company’s data.
Cybersecurity experts concerned about Russians hacking the Democratic National Committee’s server say they looked for possible Russian hacks to Trump’s servers. This has been public knowledge since 2016.
Many of the details of how cybersecurity experts searched for Russian ties to Trump servers were told by the experts themselves in this 2018 article by Dexter Filkins of NewYorker.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign
The story is not new. Most of it was revealed in the recent indictment of Michael Sussman, a Clinton campaign lawyer charged with lying to the FBI. Durham alleges Sussman went to the FBI on Clinton’s behalf without revealing it. Sussman maintains his innocence.
News organizations such as the New York Times did stories about the Durham revelations when Sussman was indicted.
Fox News on-air personalities compound the errors by spinning its own inaccurate story beyond recognition
Here’s the document filed by Durham. USA v Sussmann Government’s Motion to… on Scribd:
https://www.scribd.com/document/558443477/US-v-Sussmann-GOVERNMENT-S-MOTION-TO-INQUIRE-INTO-POTENTIAL-CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary INC for Prison late 2022

this will be fun pete...who do you think will end up in prison first...hillary or trump?

"A surprisingly large share of Democrats wants to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics in New Jersey last month, polled 1,308 Americans about the mushrooming investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s alleged links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Nearly three out of four of those polled who are following the story said they think it’s important prosecutors investigate Clinton for her role in the Russiagate scandal along with her top campaign advisers.

That includes two-thirds — or 66 percent — of the Democrats polled."

Hillary INC for Prison late 2022

this will be fun pete...who do you think will end up in prison first...hillary or trump?

"A surprisingly large share of Democrats wants to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics in New Jersey last month, polled 1,308 Americans about the mushrooming investigation by Special Counsel John Durham into the FBI’s probe of Trump’s alleged links to Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Nearly three out of four of those polled who are following the story said they think it’s important prosecutors investigate Clinton for her role in the Russiagate scandal along with her top campaign advisers.

That includes two-thirds — or 66 percent — of the Democrats polled."

took Durham 2 years to get an indictment against a clinton lawyer for lying to the fbi. that was as exciting as taking your sister to the prom.

curious to see what comes out. for sure, Trump
was right when he said his campaign was being spied on, and how the media attacked him as paranoid for saying that.

I’m sure they’ll all apologize, if they haven’t already.

I’m confused, Scott. Is it wrong or is it not wrong, to try to overturn a legitimate election result? Is it ok when the loser and the media conspire to accomplish that by conspiring together to spread a lie about the winner?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

resisting, cheating, spying, rioting, I mean, peacefully protesting.... is all approved leftist activity however it is illegal and probably demonstrates the need for re-education for everyone else...what the left is engaged in right now is how every bad, oppressive regime in history got it's start

I, for one, I’m super excited about the new wave of Trump/Bannon Pro Putin Tankies on the American right.

It will help you see them more clearly and understand exactly what they are now.

Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer wonders if the Durham filing's mention of "infiltrate" means there was "hacking" of computers, only for John Ratcliffe to admit that this was actually "lawful access into government servers" by the tech company involved.
https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1493281856887869443?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

resisting, cheating, spying, rioting, I mean, peacefully protesting.... is all approved leftist activity however it is illegal and probably demonstrates the need for re-education for everyone else...what the left is engaged in right now is how every bad, oppressive regime in history got it's start


Kool aid and tin foil not a good combination

But a POTUS attempting to steal an election . For you is just what?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kool aid and tin foil not a good combination


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you find yourself repeating the same phrases over and over...you may want to see a therapist :shocked:

I’m confused, Scott. Is it wrong or is it not wrong, to try to overturn a legitimate election result? Is it ok when the loser and the media conspire to accomplish that by conspiring together to spread a lie about the winner?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


And Jim goes right to again show how both are the same amazing

so Jim Trump even after try’s to steal the election and you still don’t understand why he was looked at as Russian asset

And you defend him once again as if he was a victim

The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters, who claim the former President was subjected to a smear campaign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you find yourself repeating the same phrases over and over...you may want to see a therapist :shocked:

What like defending Trump at every Turn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collusion?
https://nypost.com/2022/02/13/hillary-clinton-campaign-paid-tech-workers-to-dig-up-donald-trump-russia-connections/

Criminals should be held accountable
Isn’t that what is said right here on this forum?
I’m amazed how people can put her on a pedestal
Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon

Can’t you find anything new

Isn’t Trump on your pedestal

I don’t recall seeing your views of Jan6th or Trump and his people’s involvement in overturning our election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What like defending Trump at every Turn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't.....you imagine many things then spend considerable time arguing against your imagination...therapy now :btu:

And Jim goes right to again show how both are the same amazing

so Jim Trump even after try’s to steal the election and you still don’t understand why he was looked at as Russian asset

And you defend him once again as if he was a victim

The accusation -- which Durham couched in vague, technical language in a court filing late Friday -- has been seized upon by Trump and his supporters, who claim the former President was subjected to a smear campaign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two things can be true at the same time.

(1) Trump made baseless claims of election fraud, and at least looked into whether or not he could
undo the election. He’s unfit to run again. I don’t know how else i can say that i agree with you, but you’ll never be able to get it.

(2) the hilary campaign spied on trump, and finding nothing, made up allegations of russian collusion whrich the justice department and media ran with. even though there was no evidence.

even after trump won, those who hate him continued the baseless investigation.

they tried to remove him, to undo the results of an election they didn’t happen to like.

they came closer to undoing the 2016 election, than Trump did to undoing 2020. the DOJ didn’t work on Trumps behalf to try and overturn an election. But they did that for Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you find yourself repeating the same phrases over and over...you may want to see a therapist :shocked:

Good advice that Trump should take and now that his family business accounting firm has distanced themselves with a not so revealing statement that none of their financial records can be trusted; he probably might need some therapy.

Trump



:happy:

:happy:

have to pivot to trump. We’re not allowed to talk about things that are unflattering to the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you shouldn’t do is blindly repeat blatant lies
Re: this Durham "scandal." It's sad to see people freak out who dont know difference between lawful, standard DNS mining like here) versus illegal (and here nonexistent) server hacking, nor do they know DNS mining has been reported repeatedly for 5 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you shouldn’t do is blindly repeat blatant lies
Re: this Durham "scandal." It's sad to see people freak out who dont know difference between lawful, standard DNS mining like here) versus illegal (and here nonexistent) server hacking, nor do they know DNS mining has been reported repeatedly for 5 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is it legal for a private person ( say, someone on hilarys campaign staff) to hire technical
experts to hack into trump’s campaign servers, without his permission?

Then spreading BS. about russian collision to the media, all of whom acted as it were verifiably true? is that ethical?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Makes me wonder who will end up dead by suicide soon

Can’t you find anything new

Isn’t Trump on your pedestal

I don’t recall seeing your views of Jan6th or Trump and his people’s involvement in overturning our election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't put anyone on a pedestal so correct, Trump isn't on my pedestal. I prefered him over the alternative and my life was easier those 4 years as was many Americans especially economically and having a strong president as opposed to weak. I give regard to someone like Rand Paul and Trump isn't in my list.

You don't recall seeing my view on the Fedsurrection on Jan 4th last year because I didn't give it. This thread is about Durham report. There wasn't any election overturned on Jan. 4th as you stated so I shouldn't even respond to your comment.

and pete, nothing from
the Durham investigation has been leaked.

yet somehow you know what’s in there, and shockingly, you know that nothing in there makes democrats look bad.

let’s just wait and see what happens. i didn’t even know he was still
investigating, it’s ben so long since we heard anything.

Durham is the guy who they sent in to clean up the Boston Justice department when Whitey Bulger was bribing so many of them. Robert Mueller was the US attorney in boston at the time, and he couldn’t get it done. They sent Durham
in there to clean it up.

He’s earned some trust.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't put anyone on a pedestal so correct, Trump isn't on my pedestal. I prefered him over the alternative and my life was easier those 4 years as was many Americans especially economically and having a strong president as opposed to weak. I give regard to someone like Rand Paul and Trump isn't in my list.

You don't recall seeing my view on the Fedsurrection on Jan 4th last year because I didn't give it. This thread is about Durham report. There wasn't any election overturned on Jan. 4th as you stated so I shouldn't even respond to your comment.

So You prefer a Strong man who attempted to over throw an election

Your right there’s nothing left to say .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A Washington attorney charged as part of the Justice Department's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe is accusing prosecutors of trying to politicize the case and gin up negative press coverage.

The allegations came in a court filing late Monday from Michael Sussmann, a former prosecutor who worked at a law firm with longstanding ties to the Democratic Party.

The latest public flare-up in the investigation stems from a court filing Durham submitted Friday about potential conflicts of interest in Sussmann's case.

Funny the guy who mined the data, Durham does not accuse Joffe of wrongdoing, and Joffe has not been charged with a crime.

Still, Trump and his allies seized on the Friday filing and created a storm in conservative media.

But but Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA71m3PAmNQ

A Washington attorney charged as part of the Justice Department's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe is accusing prosecutors of trying to politicize the case and gin up negative press coverage.

The allegations came in a court filing late Monday from Michael Sussmann, a former prosecutor who worked at a law firm with longstanding ties to the Democratic Party.

The latest public flare-up in the investigation stems from a court filing Durham submitted Friday about potential conflicts of interest in Sussmann's case.

Funny the guy who mined the data, Durham does not accuse Joffe of wrongdoing, and Joffe has not been charged with a crime.

Still, Trump and his allies seized on the Friday filing and created a storm in conservative media.

But but Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But but Hillary"

So it's OK, when people are criticizing Biden, when you pivot to Trump, which you do constantly.

But it's foolish when anyone else does the same thing.

Are you saying there's no value in letting Durham finish his investigation? Seems like you're afraid of what he might find? SO far it's been a huge nothingburger.

Do you even understand Sussmans attempt is here, or did you post the first thing you could find that was critical of Durham? Sussman has been indicted for lying. But you take it for granted that everything he say has merit, because he worked for Hilary.

is it legal for a private person ( say, someone on hilarys campaign staff) to hire technical
experts to hack into trump’s campaign servers, without his permission?

Then spreading BS. about russian collision to the media, all of whom acted as it were verifiably true? is that ethical?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where’s it alleged by Durham that someone hacked into the Trump campaign servers?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But but Hillary"

So it's OK, when people are criticizing Biden, when you pivot to Trump, which you do constantly.

But it's foolish when anyone else does the same thing.

Are you saying there's no value in letting Durham finish his investigation? Seems like you're afraid of what he might find? SO far it's been a huge nothingburger.

Do you even understand Sussmans attempt is here, or did you post the first thing you could find that was critical of Durham? Sussman has been indicted for lying. But you take it for granted that everything he say has merit, because he worked for Hilary.

Durham is claiming that Sussman is lying based on a person who’s story has changed numerous times

Thursday, Durham will officially have been investigating the Russian investigation 50% longer than the entire Mueller investigation.

Apparently it’s harder to hunt bitches than witches
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where’s it alleged by Durham that someone hacked into the Trump campaign servers?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

durhams probe “revealed over the weekend” ( whatever that means) that Hilary staffers hired techs to hack into servers at Trump before he was elected, then at the white house after he was elected.

If it’s true, that’s not a nothingburger.

It means Trump
was 100% correct when he said hilary was spying on him. And everyone, including me, said he was a paranoid lunatic to say that. looks like he was 100% correct.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-concerned-durham-allegations-mccarthy-pledges-oversight-house-majority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Durham is claiming that Sussman is lying based on a person who’s story has changed numerous times

Thursday, Durham will officially have been investigating the Russian investigation 50% longer than the entire Mueller investigation.

Apparently it’s harder to hunt bitches than witches
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Muellers probe turned up zilch. Let’s see what Durhams turns up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Muellers probe turned up zilch. Let’s see what Durhams turns up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Zilch?
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.


Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]


The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”

In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]
Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]


Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]
The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.
Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:
In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]
After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]
In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]
In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]
The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary was asked today point blank if she spied on the trump campaign, and in classical liberal fashion, she dodged the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hilary was asked today point blank if she spied on the trump campaign, and in classical liberal fashion, she dodged the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight from zilch to But Hillary

It should be no surprise that MAGA cultists are soft on Russia. Trump spent much of his presidency conducting a propaganda campaign on behalf of Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight from zilch to But Hillary

It should be no surprise that MAGA cultists are soft on Russia. Trump spent much of his presidency conducting a propaganda campaign on behalf of Putin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this post is about the Durham report. Not about the topic of zilch. I didn’t pivot to Hilary. It’s about what her campaign did at the origins of the Russia hoax,

Why didn’t she just say “read my lips, we had nothing to do with it”?

Man oh man are you scared. IHilarys almost certainly not running again, she’s yesterday’s news, like Trump hopefully is. So why are you so desperate to ensure that the probe shows nothing?

I don’t know anything about Durham
except he was the one they specifically sent in to clean up Boston when Whitey Bulger was running things. I do know that a brutal and painstaking prosecutor, would do exactly what he’s doing.

I also know that unlike the Mueller probe, Durham isn’t leaking findings daily to friendly media. I honestly had no idea he was still investigating.

We also all know the difference in how the media covered the two investigations. The whole
media said Trumpmwas guilty, and now the same folks are ignoring everything about the Durham
probe, except to say it’s. politically motivated witch hunt.

I’ll just wait and see. I can happily accept any outcome.

Can you? Nope.

Durhams released findings apparently show that Hilarys lawyers hired tech people
to spy on Trump when he was a candidate, and even when he was POTUS.

Hilary refused to answer when asked about it.

That ain’t nothing. It’s sort of the current technological equivalent of Watergate. Isn’t it? Hacking into Trumps servers?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except that’s not what happened
As I said before and Ratcliffe admitted
Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer wonders if the Durham filing's mention of "infiltrate" means there was "hacking" of computers, only for John Ratcliffe to admit that this was actually "lawful access into government servers" by the tech company involved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except that’s not what happened
As I said before and Ratcliffe admitted
Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer wonders if the Durham filing's mention of "infiltrate" means there was "hacking" of computers, only for John Ratcliffe to admit that this was actually "lawful access into government servers" by the tech company involved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's lawful for lawyers representing a rival political campaign, to access the servers of your political rival without his knowledge or permission?

The Durham report supposedly says that Trumps private servers (before he was president) were hacked by experts, who were hired by the Clinton campaign. This is before he was elected.

There’s no Durham report
Nothing that Durham has produced says anyone hacked
DNS info is not hacking
Kash Patel -- the same guy who spent the weekend lying his ass off and a guy who played a key role in attempting to overthrow our govt --has now become a fact witness.
Quite a clown show the formerly reputable John Durham has going
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this post is about the Durham report. Not about the topic of zilch. I didn’t pivot to Hilary. It’s about what her campaign did at the origins of the Russia hoax,

Why didn’t she just say “read my lips, we had nothing to do with it”?

Man oh man are you scared. IHilarys almost certainly not running again, she’s yesterday’s news, like Trump hopefully is. So why are you so desperate to ensure that the probe shows nothing?

I don’t know anything about Durham
except he was the one they specifically sent in to clean up Boston when Whitey Bulger was running things. I do know that a brutal and painstaking prosecutor, would do exactly what he’s doing.

I also know that unlike the Mueller probe, Durham isn’t leaking findings daily to friendly media. I honestly had no idea he was still investigating.

We also all know the difference in how the media covered the two investigations. The whole
media said Trumpmwas guilty, and now the same folks are ignoring everything about the Durham
probe, except to say it’s. politically motivated witch hunt.

I’ll just wait and see. I can happily accept any outcome.

Can you? Nope.

Durhams released findings apparently show that Hilarys lawyers hired tech people
to spy on Trump when he was a candidate, and even when he was POTUS.

Hilary refused to answer when asked about it.

That ain’t nothing. It’s sort of the current technological equivalent of Watergate. Isn’t it? Hacking into Trumps servers?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy are you guys (you in particular) predictable, heat on Trump escalates as new revelations come out on multiple fronts and Fox and the other right wing media outlets, decide it's time to change the narrative to Hilary and the Durham report. When they flip the narrative, its only a matter of hours before this board sees the same narrative. Crazy Rudy now claims to have tons of evidence against Hilary in his bedroom and has had if for years, oh I can't wait to see what that conspiracy theory turns into?

You of course are always complaining we who respond to your posts always seem to turn it around to Trump, gee wiz mr. wizard wonder why that is, could it be it's a political forum and the GOP is the party or should I say cult of Trump now. It's amazing that the GOP can run in 2016 without any platform and when asked what that might be in 2020 or the upcoming midterms, the response is we will tell you when we regain the power.

Hilary isn't running again and if she or her employees broke the law and it can be PROVEN, then have at her. Trump on the other hand should he run out the clock on getting charged may run again and that is why we keep bringing him up. Maybe you are ok with the results justifying the means, personally I think he is the worst example of a human being or governor, his policies are geared towards helping the upper crust, he is one dangerous MF on foreign policy and he would love to be nothing but king for as long as he can hold the throne. He would be the worst possible result for the entire globe and I can't imagine how bad the result would be.

The economy and jobs are doing well, no thanks to a single boot licking republican as they voted for nothing they weren't forced into knowing if they didn't it would really hurt them politically. It will be interesting as spring comes and covid dies down to see what happens, the fly in the ointment of course now is Trumps man crush Putin. If Trump were asked today if he thought Russia would invade, his response would be just like his answer on Russia interfering in our elections; no Putin said he won't invade and I believe him.

Boy are you guys (you in particular) predictable, heat on Trump escalates as new revelations come out on multiple fronts and Fox and the other right wing media outlets, decide it's time to change the narrative to Hilary and the Durham report. When they flip the narrative, its only a matter of hours before this board sees the same narrative. Crazy Rudy now claims to have tons of evidence against Hilary in his bedroom and has had if for years, oh I can't wait to see what that conspiracy theory turns into?

You of course are always complaining we who respond to your posts always seem to turn it around to Trump, gee wiz mr. wizard wonder why that is, could it be it's a political forum and the GOP is the party or should I say cult of Trump now. It's amazing that the GOP can run in 2016 without any platform and when asked what that might be in 2020 or the upcoming midterms, the response is we will tell you when we regain the power.

Hilary isn't running again and if she or her employees broke the law and it can be PROVEN, then have at her. Trump on the other hand should he run out the clock on getting charged may run again and that is why we keep bringing him up. Maybe you are ok with the results justifying the means, personally I think he is the worst example of a human being or governor, his policies are geared towards helping the upper crust, he is one dangerous MF on foreign policy and he would love to be nothing but king for as long as he can hold the throne. He would be the worst possible result for the entire globe and I can't imagine how bad the result would be.

The economy and jobs are doing well, no thanks to a single boot licking republican as they voted for nothing they weren't forced into knowing if they didn't it would really hurt them politically. It will be interesting as spring comes and covid dies down to see what happens, the fly in the ointment of course now is Trumps man crush Putin. If Trump were asked today if he thought Russia would invade, his response would be just like his answer on Russia interfering in our elections; no Putin said he won't invade and I believe him.

Yawn, and wrong.

"Fox" isn't changing the narrative. Durham is sharing some of his findings.

As for me, I hope they throw the book at Trump so that he never, ever runs again. You and I probably agree on that.

At the same time, I'd like to know the truth about the origins of the Russia hoax, and it was a complete hoax. You probably have no interest in learning that truth, hope it goes away.

I can think for myself and i can agree and disagree with either side. You? Not so much.

Every single post made my every single one of you guys, can be boiled down to this:

liberal=good, conservative=bad.

If only the world were that simple.

"the GOP can run in 2016 without any platform and when asked what that might be in 2020 or the upcoming midterms, the response is we will tell you when we regain the power. "

Not sure what planet you live on, but here on Earth, in 2016, Trump and Republicans ran on tax cuts, creating job growth, eliminating unnecessary regulations, killing jihadists, not getting us involved in questionable wars. They did all those things. Of course, they also ran on some things that they failed to do (border wall, overhaul Obamacare).

What in Gods name gave you the idea that they ran on nothing?

The only reason we're suddenly hearing about Hillary Clinton & new conspiracy theories in right wing media is because there is deep concern about what's coming out of the January 6 Committee's investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The only reason we're suddenly hearing about Hillary Clinton & new conspiracy theories in right wing media is because there is deep concern about what's coming out of the January 6 Committee's investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when someone says "conspiracy theory(ies)" now...I automatically assume they are an idiot

Today makes day 1,011 for Durham. The Mueller investigation lasted 674 days, total. So as of today, John Durham has been investigation for 50% longer than the entire Mueller investigation he was hired to undermine.

In 22 months, Mueller got convictions of Trump’s Coffee Boy, his National Security Advisor, his Campaign Manager and the Campaign Manager’s Deputy, Trump’s personal lawyer, as well as another American and the son-in-law of Alfa Bank Oligarch German Khan. On a referral, a second Konstantin Kilimnik partner, Sam Patten pled guilty. Mueller charged 25 Russian involved in attacks on the country, as well as Kilimnik himself in a conspiracy with Manafort (though not the conspiracy for trading campaign strategy for debt relief). With another eight months, DC’s US Attorney would win Roger Stone’s conviction. None of those things — not the George Papadopoulos guilty plea, not the guilty plea of Khan’s son-in-law Alex Van der Zwaan, and not Michael Cohen’s plea to covering up the communications he had (on Trump’s behalf) with the Kremlin — derives from either the Steele dossier or the Alfa-Bank anomalies.

In half again that time span, John Durham has won the guilty plea of Kevin Clinesmith (whose misconduct DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found), charged Michael Sussmann for lying about coordinating with Hillary staffers he didn’t coordinate with, and charged Igor Danchenko for lies that Durham’s prosecutors created, at least in part, with cut-and-paste failures. All because he’s sure — and he’s going to keep going until he finds proof — that the abundant prosecutions Mueller obtained were the fruit of stuff that Durham is working hard to criminalize and not the criminal conduct that all those Trump flunkies but Stone admitted to.

With the addition of a new financial crimes prosecutor yesterday to the Michael Sussmann prosecution team, I feel like Durham is barely getting started.
Why not double the length of time Mueller took to investigate rather than avoid admitting you can’t substantiate any of your conspiracy theories?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today makes day 1,011 for Durham. The Mueller investigation lasted 674 days, total.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Durham is investigating actual crimes...takes longer I guess

Durham is investigating actual crimes...takes longer I guess

Cause we all know Trump had no deals in Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cause we all know Trump had no deals in Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

time to move on pete.......when he is elected again in 2024 you can resume your pursuit of him :hihi:

Cause we all know Trump had no deals in Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But Biden's deals with Ukraine that made his family wealthy, aren't worth mentioning...

It was a hoax Pete. An attempt to overturn the results of an election, because your side didn't like the outcome. It's OK when your side does it.

They were screaming for impeachment before his inauguration.

time to move on pete.......when he is elected again in 2024 you can resume your pursuit of him :hihi:

I say Trump can't win, and I am never, ever wrong about predicting his results in elections.

But Biden's deals with Ukraine that made his family wealthy, aren't worth mentioning...


what Deals Jim? let's hear JOE Biden's deals with Ukraine lets see the facts

and please dont tell us because he wanted Shokin fired ( because we already know (There was nothing remotely controversial about this at the time. No congressional Republicans complained about it, and the European Union hailed the decision to fire Shokin.)


did you know in 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board of directors

So in Jims world the crack head pillow Guy because he wears a cross is cheered for his success

Trump and his children are praised for their success! yet the president of the United States regularly accepts payments from foreign sources to his company while in office, and so do the Trump children. ( no mention of using Daddy name to make that happen ) what a shock

But Hunter the crack head is not cheered for his success they blame daddy

But Biden's deals with Ukraine that made his family wealthy, aren't worth mentioning...


what Deals Jim? let's hear JOE Biden's deals with Ukraine lets see the facts

and please dont tell us because he wanted Shokin fired ( because we already know (There was nothing remotely controversial about this at the time. No congressional Republicans complained about it, and the European Union hailed the decision to fire Shokin.)


did you know in 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board of directors

So in Jims world the crack head pillow Guy because he wears a cross is cheered for his success

Trump and his children are praised for their success! yet the president of the United States regularly accepts payments from foreign sources to his company while in office, and so do the Trump children. ( no mention of using Daddy name to make that happen ) what a shock

But Hunter the crack head is not cheered for his success they blame daddy

there are tapes of deals
with Hunter where it’s discussed what big money is set aside for “the man”.

So hunter got all that on his own. Daddy didn’t sell any influence at all.

Sure. Only republicans do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But Biden's deals with Ukraine that made his family wealthy, aren't worth mentioning...


what Deals Jim? let's hear JOE Biden's deals with Ukraine lets see the facts

and please dont tell us because he wanted Shokin fired ( because we already know (There was nothing remotely controversial about this at the time. No congressional Republicans complained about it, and the European Union hailed the decision to fire Shokin.)


did you know in 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board of directors

So in Jims world the crack head pillow Guy because he wears a cross is cheered for his success

Trump and his children are praised for their success! yet the president of the United States regularly accepts payments from foreign sources to his company while in office, and so do the Trump children. ( no mention of using Daddy name to make that happen ) what a shock

But Hunter the crack head is not cheered for his success they blame daddy

they buried the story of hunters laptop before the election, censoring anyone who mentioned it on social
media. then after the election, they admit that it was true. nothing politically motivated there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are tapes of deals
with Hunter where it’s discussed what big money is set aside for “the man”.

So hunter got all that on his own. Daddy didn’t sell any influence at all.

Sure. Only republicans do that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as expected you can't provide anything but rumor and innuendo the new Gold standard of conservatives evidence

they buried the story of hunters laptop before the election, censoring anyone who mentioned it on social
media. then after the election, they admit that it was true. nothing politically motivated there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

still with hunters Laptop once again conveniently buried by the deep state to protect Biden :sleeps::sleeps::sleeps:

still with hunters Laptop once again conveniently buried by the deep state to protect Biden :sleeps::sleeps::sleeps:

So why can you constantly bring up Trump, but I can't bring up Hunters laptop? Please explain.

Biden was Obama's point person on Ukraine. Later on, Hunter got fabulously wealthy from jobs in Ukraine which he was obviously unqualified for.

Of all the countries around the globe, you're telling us it's just a coincidence, that Bidens son got rich in the country where Biden was the president's point man.

Sure. Just a coincidence.

We can still talk about Trump and Russia, but not Hilary or Hunter Biden.

That's very convenient for you.

Jim your foil needs to be loosened on occasion, otherwise you could see permanent brain damage, I think those warnings are clearly marked on the Reynolds wrap package.

Jim your foil needs to be loosened on occasion, otherwise you could see permanent brain damage, I think those warnings are clearly marked on the Reynolds wrap package.

tell me the craziest thing I've posted.

It's tin foil hat stuff for me to say "lets see how what the investigation finds"?

I said that with the Mueller probe, I'm saying the same exact thing now. Durham is a serious, serious investigator. Let's see where it goes. Obviously for political reasons, there is an outcome I'm hoping for, just as we all have our biases. But I haven't concluded that Hilary is guilty, like the left said Trump was guilty before Mueller finished. And if Durham says there's no evidence Hilary was involved, that'll be good enough for me and I'll move on.

Lobbing baseless insults is easy GS, and quite popular from the left. Try something harder. Quote my post, and tell us exactly why my words are crazy and paranoid tin foil hat stuff.

I think Hunters laptop in in a secret spot in either Rudy’s house or the Pizza parlor child trafficking to go shop.

So why can you constantly bring up Trump, but I can't bring up Hunters laptop? Please explain.


Because Trump is relative as more and more info surfaces
His incidents actually happen and are still happening How long is long enough Jim? for Durham to find something ? this is playing like election Fraud You and other insit it was so bad so rampant yet they cant find any Seems Durham is doing the same thing looking so hard hes making stuff up and as if on Cue the Trump fan club claims another smoking Gun

Your Hunter laptop is fixation this is what all Normal citizens would do Mr. Isaac said he did not hear back from investigators. (why would he ) He said that he wondered why the laptop’s existence had not been disclosed (again why would he care ?) Mr. Isaac said “it just didn’t feel right” that the existence of the laptop was not widely known. “Somebody besides me should have known about it,” he said. Mr. Isaac said he called a couple of members of Congress, whom he did not identify, but did not hear back. then Mr. Isaac declined to discuss his next steps, but The New York Post reported that in September, he gave the copy of the hard drive (well thats not legal )to Mr. Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert J. Costello. Mr. Giuliani later provided it to the tabloid, a handoff in which Stephen K. Bannon, sounds like a blue dress conventenly saved not swallowed Isaac said he turned the hard drive over to Costello because of fears for his safety. But he's: on Hannity :rotflmao:


And now Durham seems to be trying to charge people for irrelevant non material false statements

"It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material — false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government."

The attorneys wrote that "false statements about ancillary matters" are immaterial.

I think Hunters laptop in in a secret spot in either Rudy’s house or the Pizza parlor child trafficking to go shop.

I think Hunter is an absolute loser and a hot mess (fathered a child with a stripper and had an affair with his dead brother's widow, THAT puts him in very sick company), who coincidentally got filthy rich in Ukraine, where his daddy was Obama's point man for that particular country.

Look it up...NPR, Twitter, and Politico all dismissed the laptop emails as "false" before the election, then a year later they said "oh by the way the stories about the Hunter's emails were true".

A huge chunk of the media refused to cover what was in those emails, because they were afrtaid of the impact that reporting would have had on the election.

That's not what the media is supposed to do, that's not why the press has special constitutional protections.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/politico-hunter-biden-laptop-story-russian-disinformation

https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/npr-issues-correction-after-claiming-hunter-biden-laptop-story-was-discredited-by-intelligence/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10403473/Ro-Khanna-Twitter-mistake-suppressing-Hunter-Biden-laptop-story.html

Because Trump is relative as more and more info surfaces
His incident actually happen and is still happening

Your Hunter laptop is fixation is imaginary

And now Durham seems to be trying to charge people for irrelevant non material false statements

"It has long been a crime to make a false statement to the government. But the law criminalizes only false statements that are material — false statements that matter because they can actually affect a specific decision of the government."

The attorneys wrote that "false statements about ancillary matters" are immaterial.

"Because Trump is relative as more and more info surfaces "

Joe Biden, the sitting president, isn't relevant! Gotcha.

How do you know that Durham made false statements? Because Hilary said so?

"Because Trump is relative as more and more info surfaces "

Joe Biden, the sitting president, isn't relevant! Gotcha. Jim get back to me when Biden tries to steal the election , or fudges his company's valuation or Has his un elected kids in the white House

How do you know that Durham made false statements? Because Hilary said so?

can you read Durham seems to be trying to charge people for irrelevant non material false statements nothing about him making false statements


you really need to watch and read New from other sources :btu:

you really need to watch and read New from other sources :btu:



they say reading helps improve your spelling and grammar...

they say reading helps improve your spelling and grammar...

If to people post there opinions and the tyme two do sow isn’t apropriate, rust assured their will be one guy we can awl depend on to set things right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If to people post there opinions and the tyme two do sow isn’t apropriate, rust assured their will be one guy we can awl depend on to set things right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's the most interesting thing you've offered in a very long time :)

can you read Durham seems to be trying to charge people for irrelevant non material false statements nothing about him making false statements


you really need to watch and read New from other sources :btu:

"Jim get back to me when Biden tries to steal the election, or fudges his company's valuation or Has his un elected kids in the white House"

Mueller didn't investigate Trump for any of those things. Yet you were OK with that investigation.

Hilarys campaign team may well have tried to overturn the results of the 2016 election, by fabricating the Russia hoax.

Trumps kids were in unelected positions. Advisors arent elected.

You want Biden's son Hunter serving as a senior policy advisor? I doubt it.

can you read Durham seems to be trying to charge people for irrelevant non material false statements nothing about him making false statements




How is it irrelevant if Hilary's campaign staff paid tech experts to hack into Trumps servers, when they were running against each other for president? And then continued to do so when he was POTUS?

So why can you constantly bring up Trump, but I can't bring up Hunters laptop? Please explain.

Biden was Obama's point person on Ukraine. Later on, Hunter got fabulously wealthy from jobs in Ukraine which he was obviously unqualified for.

Of all the countries around the globe, you're telling us it's just a coincidence, that Bidens son got rich in the country where Biden was the president's point man.

Sure. Just a coincidence.

We can still talk about Trump and Russia, but not Hilary or Hunter Biden.

That's very convenient for you.

2006, President George W. Bush appointed him Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board of directors

seems he had some experience .. Like i said you hail Trump's kids for using daddy's Name as Smart

But you accuse Biden of pay bribes or something so his Kid got rich But you cant prove it so you just lie about it But your not a partisan Hack ya ok

2006, President George W. Bush appointed him Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board of directors

seems he had some experience .. Like i said you hail Trump's kids for using daddy's Name as Smart

But you accuse Biden of pay bribes or something so his Kid got rich But you cant prove it so you just lie about it But your not a partisan Hack ya ok

Yup. And purely a coincidence that Hunter sought his fortune in Ukraine, where VP Biden wielded a lot of power. Just a coincidence. Of all the countries on the planet, Hunter happened to get rich in the country where his VP daddy had a ton of influence.

I just checked, there are 195 countries in the world today. Hunter had to seek riches in Ukraine.

How is it irrelevant if Hilary's campaign staff paid tech experts to hack into Trumps servers, when they were running against each other for president? And then continued to do so when he was POTUS?

Jim like I said you Are a 1 trick Fox pony you need to read other sources other than the ones telling you what you want to hear


Thus far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump. how can that be if it happened


The FBI investigated Sussmann’s tip but concluded that it was not suspicious at all. The indictment said agents found that the computer in question “was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization,


In a later filing in October, Durham appeared to acknowledge that he did not have evidence that Sussmann ever spoke directly to the Clinton campaign about Alfa Bank.

have fun explaining how everyone's lying

Jim like I said you Are a 1 trick Fox pony you need to read other sources other than the ones telling you what you want to hear


Thus far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump. how can that be if it happened


The FBI investigated Sussmann’s tip but concluded that it was not suspicious at all. The indictment said agents found that the computer in question “was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization,


In a later filing in October, Durham appeared to acknowledge that he did not have evidence that Sussmann ever spoke directly to the Clinton campaign about Alfa Bank.

have fun explaining how everyone's lying

"Thus far, Durham has not charged anyone with spying on Trump."

Hes. Not. Done.

He submitted a report last weekend, which supposedly showed that Hilarys lawyers hired people to hack into Trumps servers when he was running, and even White House servers after Trump was president.

I have 2 very simple questions...

(1) do you have concrete evidence that this spying never happened, that Durham is lying?

(2) if Durham is correct and that happened, is it a big deal?

You're dismissing this all as a waste, when he's just getting started. It may well turn out to be a waste, and if it is, I'll be the first one to say it.

But IF Hilarys lawyers paid tech experts to spy on Trump, I think most Americans would find that a huge deal. You'll all dismiss it, but most people won't.

You aren't capable of admitting flaws in democrats, or virtue in Republicans.

Durham has not “submitted a report”

The Words 'Infiltrate' and 'Spy' Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham's Recent Court Filing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Durham has not “submitted a report”


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe we should wait for the report before jumping to conclusions...

Durham has not “submitted a report”


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, he submitted a "court filing" Friday night...not a "report".

Does that make you feel better?

Sorry, he submitted a "court filing" Friday night...not a "report".

Does that make you feel better?

I’m fine

The Words 'Infiltrate' and 'Spy' Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham's Recent Court Filing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But Jesse Watters said:

"Durham’s documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump’s home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate’s computer server and a sitting president’s computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media."

Worse than Watergate!

:rotflmao::rotflmao:But Jesse Watters said:

"Durham’s documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump’s home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate’s computer server and a sitting president’s computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media."

Worse than Watergate!

But Jesse Watters said:

"Durham’s documents show that Hillary Clinton hired people who hacked into Trump’s home and office computers before and during his presidency, and planted evidence that he colluded with Russia.

Yeah. You heard that right. Hillary broke into a presidential candidate’s computer server and a sitting president’s computer server, spying on them. There, her hackers planted evidence, fabricated evidence connecting Trump to Russia, then fed that doctored material to the feds and the media."

Worse than Watergate!

I don't watch Jesse waters. But apparently Joh Durham's court filing last Friday laid out that lawyers for the Hilary campaign paid tech experts to hack into Trumps servers, both before and after the election, meaning the hacked into WHite House servers after he was president.

It's probably a safe bet that neither you nor I know if Durham can actually show that. All I know about him, is he was hand picked to go to Boston to clean up the mess at the Justice Dept there because Whitey Bulger had people on his payroll. So hes kind of a competent, serious guy.

Maybe hes a partisan hack who will say anything Trump pays him to say. Maybe he's got the goods.

Any reason why we can't wait and see how it plays out?

I’m fine

The Words 'Infiltrate' and 'Spy' Appear Exactly Zero Times in John Durham's Recent Court Filing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did I say infiltarate or spy?

I said hack into. WHich is what Durhams filing alleges, which is kind of the same thing as infiltrate or spy, no?

I don't watch Jesse waters. But apparently Joh Durham's court filing last Friday laid out that lawyers for the Hilary campaign paid tech experts to hack into Trumps servers, both before and after the election, meaning the hacked into WHite House servers after he was president.



The filing from Durham did not say the clinton campaign paid anyone to hack the Trump campaign. It also did not say that the data they are talking about was from when Trump was in the WH.

The lies about last week's filing which got Fox news and other right wing outlets all fired up seems to have died now that Durham yesterday pushed back against those lies and they have stopped covering them.

Durham had a good reputation but it looks like it will be shot after this.

The filing from Durham did not say the clinton campaign paid anyone to hack the Trump campaign. It also did not say that the data they are talking about was from when Trump was in the WH.

The lies about last week's filing which got Fox news and other right wing outlets all fired up seems to have died now that Durham yesterday pushed back against those lies and they have stopped covering them.

Durham had a good reputation but it looks like it will be shot after this.

If Fox told lies, and Durham pushed back against those lies, why would his reputation be shot?

Durham hasn't been making hysterical promises of results, I honestly didn't even know he was still investigating this.

Durham had a good reputation but it looks like it will be shot after this.



oh please....

For the second time in two weeks, the conservative media has distorted and badly stretched the available evidence as it searches for a Democratic scandal. And for the second time in two weeks, significant additional evidence rebutting its claims has been met with a large-scale shrug from the supposed scandal’s many purveyors.


Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the second time in two weeks, the conservative media has distorted and badly stretched the available evidence as it searches for a Democratic scandal. And for the second time in two weeks, significant additional evidence rebutting its claims has been met with a large-scale shrug from the supposed scandal’s many purveyors.


Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

must be learning from msnbc and cnn....

must be learning from msnbc and cnn....

A fact that supports what I have been trying to relate that the problem isn't Trump at this point, it is the base of the GOP: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rapey McForehead are far more popular among Republicans than Liz Cheney.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A fact that supports what I have been trying to relate that the problem isn't Trump at this point, it is the base of the GOP: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rapey McForehead are far more popular among Republicans than Liz Cheney.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For you, that's a problem. And that's a good reason for it not being a problem for most Republicans.

For you, that's a problem. And that's a good reason for it not being a problem for most Republicans.

Those people would be working in a drive through if they weren’t in politics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those people would be working in a drive through if they weren’t in politics
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ohhh...can we make a list of candidates for this distinction?

ohhh...can we make a list of candidates for this distinction?

and Biden would be wearing knee high white socks, eating dinner every day at 4:00 PM at Golden Corral, if not for politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox News Backs Down on Hillary Spying Claims

Say it ain’t so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox News Backs Down on Hillary Spying Claims

Say it ain’t so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what was your source for that quote you attributed to “the republican base”?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did I say infiltarate or spy?

I said hack into. WHich is what Durhams filing alleges, which is kind of the same thing as infiltrate or spy, no?

Sussmann not guilty. Extremely fast verdict. more or less total humiliation for Durham. Jury presumably recognized the picayune pettiness of the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bill Barr was never a prosecutor and once again shows he was never fit to serve as AG. He applauds Durham’s failed prosecution of Sussmann because getting a story out was more important than a conviction. This is an abuse of prosecutorial power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“In a way, Durham has provided a valuable service. His inability to uncover evidence of a hoax confirms that Trump’s denials and diversions have been the real hoax all along.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has there ever been someone who has ruined their good reputation as much Durham?

The final expected trial of special counsel John Durham’s probe took an unexpected turn Wednesday, with Durham grilling and rebuking his own witness after the witness seemed to bolster the defense of Igor Danchenko, a key Steele dossier source.

The dynamic was surprising because it was Durham’s first witness. And at times, while Durham personally questioned the witness, he strayed from the narrow case against Danchenko and focused more on the FBI’s mistakes in 2016 as it investigated then-candidate Donald Trump.

Durham – a Trump-era holdover who was appointed in 2019 to find government misconduct in the Trump-Russia investigation – charged Danchenko with lying to the FBI agents who were trying to corroborate the dossier. Danchenko has pleaded not guilty and says he told the truth.

But the situation shifted when the defense got to cross-examine Auten. Danchenko’s lawyers highlighted Auten’s previous testimony, given years ago to the Justice Department inspector general and to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which contradicted some of Durham’s claims.

Auten previously said Danchenko was “truthful” and “assisted” the Russia probe. He also said securing Danchenko as an FBI source was “one of the best things that came out of” the Russia probe. This undercuts the core of Durham’s indictment, which alleged that Danchenko serially lied to the FBI and impeded the investigators who were scrambling to verify the Steele dossier.

Danchenko’s defense attorney, Danny Onorato, asked Auten in court on Wednesday if that was still his belief today, and Auten answered in the affirmative, adding, “I stand by my testimony.”

The defense also elicited testimony indicating that Durham cherry-picked material from an FBI memo that Auten wrote, when there was exculpatory information on the very next page.

“And Mr. Durham didn’t take any steps to correct your wrong answer, did he?” Onorato asked.

Durham attacks his own witness
After Onorato finished, Durham returned for a final round of questioning, but the tone completely changed. Durham and Auten sparred for over an hour. Durham sounded angry at times, and many of Auten’s responses were adversarial, clearly not giving Durham the answers that fit his narrative.

Durham brought up the previously unknown fact that Auten was “recommended for suspension” by the FBI’s internal auditors. Auten acknowledged the recommendation, which he said is under appeal. Lawyers often bring up a witness’ past misconduct or punishments as a way to attack their credibility – but in this case, it was the prosecutor seemingly impeaching his own witness.

Durham coming up big for Barr and Trump, yawn.

I remember distinctly being told over and over how the Durham probe was going to indict half the Beltway and send all kinds of evil Trump haters to jail.

Durham couldn't convict a ham sandwich.

But thanks again to Durham, for his reminder that the Russia Investigation was NOT a hoax.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing all that time and money spent and Durham came up with nothing. His own "witnesses" disagreed w/him.

Poor John Durham.

Leads investigation into CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes. Brings no charges.

Leads investigation into CIA enhanced interrogation techniques. Brings no charges.

Leads the "make Trump feel better" investigation. Gets laughed out of court twice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps personal attorney Barr is pulling the strings and a guy (Durham) who had a decent reputation will go the way of many in this administration; they come in smelling like a rose and go out covered in s*it and the stink of this corrupt White House.

Jaw dropping reporting. Lots here including an explanation of why Durham's colleague resigned: under pressure from Barr to release an "interim" report damaging Clinton & the FBI as the election drew near, Durham had a draft prepared that wasn't factual.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Amazing how Burr and Trump politicized the Justice Dept. and put their finger on the scale of justice. Durham (as with most Trump appointees) had his reputation ruined forever:

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled
The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.


The veteran prosecutor John H. Durham was given the job of determining whether there was any wrongdoing behind the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.Credit...Samuel Corum for The New York Times


By Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
Jan. 26, 2023



WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

Interviews by The Times with more than a dozen current and former officials have revealed an array of previously unreported episodes that show how the Durham inquiry became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes as it went unsuccessfully down one path after another even as Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr promoted a misleading narrative of its progress.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it.

Mr. Durham used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide to George Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media. Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued.

There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known. The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)

Now, as Mr. Durham works on a final report, the interviews by The Times provide new details of how he and Mr. Barr sought to recast the scrutiny of the 2016 Trump campaign’s myriad if murky links to Russia as unjustified and itself a crime.

Mr. Barr, Mr. Durham and Ms. Dannehy declined to comment. The current and former officials who discussed the investigation all spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the legal, political and intelligence sensitivities surrounding the topic.

A year into the Durham inquiry, Mr. Barr declared that the attempt “to get to the bottom of what happened” in 2016 “cannot be, and it will not be, a tit-for-tat exercise. We are not going to lower the standards just to achieve a result.”

But Robert Luskin, a criminal defense lawyer and former Justice Department prosecutor who represented two witnesses Mr. Durham interviewed, said that he had a hard time squaring Mr. Durham’s prior reputation as an independent-minded straight shooter with his end-of-career conduct as Mr. Barr’s special counsel.


Attorney General William P. Barr took office in 2019 with suspicions about the origins of the Russia investigation.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

An Odd Couple
A month after Mr. Barr was confirmed as attorney general in February 2019, the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ended the Russia investigation and turned in his report without charging any Trump associates with engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow over its covert operation to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.

Mr. Trump would repeatedly portray the Mueller report as having found “no collusion with Russia.” The reality was more complex. In fact, the report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” and it established both how Moscow had worked to help Mr. Trump win and how his campaign had expected to benefit from the foreign interference.

That spring, Mr. Barr assigned Mr. Durham to scour the origins of the Russia investigation for wrongdoing, telling Fox News that he wanted to know if “officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale” in deciding to pursue the investigation. “A lot of the answers have been inadequate, and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together,” he added.

While attorneys general overseeing politically sensitive inquiries tend to keep their distance from the investigators, Mr. Durham visited Mr. Barr in his office for at times weekly updates and consultations about his day-to-day work. They also sometimes dined and sipped Scotch together, people familiar with their work said.

In some ways, they were an odd match. Taciturn and media-averse, the goateed Mr. Durham had spent more than three decades as a prosecutor before Mr. Trump appointed him the U.S. attorney for Connecticut. Administrations of both parties had assigned him to investigate potential official wrongdoing, like allegations of corrupt ties between mafia informants and F.B.I. agents, and the C.I.A.’s torture of terrorism detainees and destruction of evidence.

By contrast, the vocal and domineering Mr. Barr has never prosecuted a case and is known for using his law enforcement platform to opine on culture-war issues and politics. He had effectively auditioned to be Mr. Trump’s attorney general by asserting to a New York Times reporter that there was more basis to investigate Mrs. Clinton than Mr. Trump’s “so-called ‘collusion’” with Russia, and by writing a memo suggesting a way to shield Mr. Trump from scrutiny for obstruction of justice.

But the two shared a worldview: They are both Catholic conservatives and Republicans, born two months apart in 1950. As a career federal prosecutor, Mr. Durham already revered the office of the attorney general, people who know him say. And as he was drawn into Mr. Barr’s personal orbit, Mr. Durham came to embrace that particular attorney general’s intense feelings about the Russia investigation.

President Donald J. Trump openly suggested that Mr. Durham should charge his adversaries with crimes.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

‘The Thinnest of Suspicions’
At the time Mr. Barr was confirmed, he told aides that he already suspected that intelligence abuses played a role in igniting the Russia investigation — and that unearthing any wrongdoing would be a priority.

In May 2019, soon after giving Mr. Durham his assignment, Mr. Barr summoned the head of the National Security Agency, Paul M. Nakasone, to his office. In front of several aides, Mr. Barr demanded that the N.S.A. cooperate with the Durham inquiry.

Referring to the C.I.A. and British spies, Mr. Barr also said he suspected that the N.S.A.’s “friends” had helped instigate the Russia investigation by targeting the Trump campaign, aides briefed on the meeting said. And repeating a sexual vulgarity, he warned that if the N.S.A. wronged him by not doing all it could to help Mr. Durham, Mr. Barr would do the same to the agency.

Mr. Barr’s insistence about what he had surmised bewildered intelligence officials. But Mr. Durham spent his first months looking for any evidence that the origin of the Russia investigation involved an intelligence operation targeting the Trump campaign.

Mr. Durham’s team spent long hours combing the C.I.A.’s files but found no way to support the allegation. Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham traveled abroad together to press British and Italian officials to reveal everything their agencies had gleaned about the Trump campaign and relayed to the United States, but both allied governments denied they had done any such thing. Top British intelligence officials expressed indignation to their U.S. counterparts about the accusation, three former U.S. officials said.

Mr. Durham and Mr. Barr had not yet given up when a new problem arose: In early December, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, completed his own report on the origins of the Russia investigation.

The inspector general revealed errors and omissions in wiretap applications targeting a former Trump campaign adviser and determined that an F.B.I. lawyer had doctored an email in a way that kept one of those problems from coming to light. (Mr. Durham’s team later negotiated a guilty plea by that lawyer.)

But the broader findings contradicted Mr. Trump’s accusations and the rationale for Mr. Durham’s inquiry. Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. And he concluded that the investigation’s basis — an Australian diplomat’s tip that a Trump campaign adviser had seemed to disclose advance knowledge that Russia would release hacked Democratic emails — had been sufficient to lawfully open it.

The week before Mr. Horowitz released the report, he and aides came to Mr. Durham’s offices — nondescript suites on two floors of a building in northeast Washington — to go over it.

Mr. Durham lobbied Mr. Horowitz to drop his finding that the diplomat’s tip had been sufficient for the F.B.I. to open its “full” counterintelligence investigation, arguing that it was enough at most for a “preliminary” inquiry, according to officials. But Mr. Horowitz did not change his mind.

That weekend, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided to weigh in publicly to shape the narrative on their terms.

Minutes before the inspector general’s report went online, Mr. Barr issued a statement contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s major finding, declaring that the F.B.I. opened the investigation “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient.” He would later tell Fox News that the investigation began “without any basis,” as if the diplomat’s tip never happened.

Mr. Trump also weighed in, telling reporters that the details of the inspector general’s report were “far worse than anything I would have even imagined,” adding: “I look forward to the Durham report, which is coming out in the not-too-distant future. It’s got its own information, which is this information plus, plus, plus.”

And the Justice Department sent reporters a statement from Mr. Durham that clashed with both Justice Department principles about not discussing ongoing investigations and his personal reputation as particularly tight-lipped. He said he disagreed with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions about the Russia investigation’s origins, citing his own access to more information and “evidence collected to date.”

But as Mr. Durham’s inquiry proceeded, he never presented any evidence contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s factual findings about the basis on which F.B.I. officials opened the investigation.

By summer 2020, it was clear that the hunt for evidence supporting Mr. Barr’s hunch about intelligence abuses had failed. But he waited until after the 2020 election to publicly concede that there had turned out to be no sign of “foreign government activity” and that the C.I.A. had “stayed in its lane” after all.

Mr. Barr later wrote that his relationship with Mr. Trump eroded because his “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election.”Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

An Awkward Tip
On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

But in October 2019, a garbled echo became public. The Times reported that Mr. Durham’s administrative review of the Russia inquiry had evolved to include a criminal investigation, while saying it was not clear what the suspected crime was. Citing their own sources, many other news outlets confirmed the development.

The news reports, however, were all framed around the erroneous assumption that the criminal investigation must mean Mr. Durham had found evidence of potential crimes by officials involved in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Barr, who weighed in publicly about the Durham inquiry at regular intervals in ways that advanced a pro-Trump narrative, chose in this instance not to clarify what was really happening.

By the spring and summer of 2020, with Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign in full swing, the Durham investigation’s “failure to deliver scalps in time for the election” began to erode Mr. Barr’s relationship with Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr wrote in his memoir.

Mr. Trump was stoking a belief among his supporters that Mr. Durham might charge former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. That proved too much for Mr. Barr, who in May 2020 clarified that “our concern of potential criminality is focused on others.”

Even so, in August, Mr. Trump lashed out in a Fox interview, asserting that Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, along with top F.B.I. and intelligence officials, had been caught in “the single biggest political crime in the history of our country” and the only thing stopping charges would be if Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham wanted to be “politically correct.”

Against that backdrop, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham did not shut down their inquiry when the search for intelligence abuses hit a dead end. With the inspector general’s inquiry complete, they turned to a new rationale: a hunt for a basis to accuse the Clinton campaign of conspiring to defraud the government by manufacturing the suspicions that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, along with scrutinizing what the F.B.I. and intelligence officials knew about the Clinton campaign’s actions.

Mr. Durham also developed an indirect method to impute political bias to law enforcement officials: comparing the Justice Department’s aggressive response to suspicions of links between Mr. Trump and Russia with its more cautious and skeptical reaction to various Clinton-related suspicions.

He examined an investigation into the Clinton Foundation’s finances in which the F.B.I.’s repeated requests for a subpoena were denied. He also scrutinized how the F.B.I. gave Mrs. Clinton a “defensive briefing” about suspicions that a foreign government might be trying to influence her campaign through donations, but did not inform Mr. Trump about suspicions that Russia might be conspiring with people associated with his campaign.

The Durham inquiry looked for evidence that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign had conspired to frame Donald J. Trump.

Dubious Intelligence
During the Russia investigation, the F.B.I. used claims from what turned out to be a dubious source, the Steele dossier — opposition research indirectly funded by the Clinton campaign — in its botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign aide.

The Durham investigation did something with parallels to that incident.

In Mr. Durham’s case, the dubious sources were memos, whose credibility the intelligence community doubted, written by Russian intelligence analysts and discussing purported conversations involving American victims of Russian hacking, according to people familiar with the matter.

The memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.

Mr. Durham wanted to use the memos, which included descriptions of Americans discussing a purported plan by Mrs. Clinton to attack Mr. Trump by linking him to Russia’s hacking and releasing in 2016 of Democratic emails, to pursue the theory that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump. And in doing so, Mr. Durham sought to use the memos as justification to get access to the private communications of an American citizen.

One purported hacking victim identified in the memos was Leonard Benardo, the executive vice president of the Open Society Foundations, a pro-democracy organization whose Hungarian-born founder, Mr. Soros, has been vilified by the far right.

In 2017, The Washington Post reported that the Russian memos included a claim that Mr. Benardo and a Democratic member of Congress, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, had discussed how Loretta E. Lynch, the Obama-era attorney general, had supposedly promised to keep the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails from going too far.

But Mr. Benardo and Ms. Wasserman Schultz said they had never even met, let alone communicated about Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mr. Durham set out to prove that the memos described real conversations, according to people familiar with the matter. He sent a prosecutor on his team, Andrew DeFilippis, to ask Judge Beryl A. Howell, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, for an order allowing them to seize information about Mr. Benardo’s emails.

But Judge Howell decided that the Russian memo was too weak a basis to intrude on Mr. Benardo’s privacy, they said. Mr. Durham then personally appeared before her and urged her to reconsider, but she again ruled against him.

Rather than dropping the idea, Mr. Durham sidestepped Judge Howell’s ruling by invoking grand-jury power to demand documents and testimony directly from Mr. Soros’s foundation and Mr. Benardo about his emails, the people said. (It is unclear whether Mr. Durham served them with a subpoena or instead threatened to do so if they did not cooperate.)

Rather than fighting in court, the foundation and Mr. Benardo quietly complied, according to people familiar with the matter. But for Mr. Durham, the result appears to have been another dead end.

In a statement provided to The Times by Mr. Soros’s foundation, Mr. Benardo reiterated that he never met or corresponded with Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and said that “if such documentation exists, it’s of course made up.”

Internal Strife
As the focus of the Durham investigation shifted, cracks formed inside the team. Mr. Durham’s deputy, Ms. Dannehy, a longtime close colleague, increasingly argued with him in front of other prosecutors and F.B.I. agents about legal ethics.

Ms. Dannehy had independent standing as a respected prosecutor. In 2008, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey assigned her to investigate whether to charge senior Bush administration officials with crimes related to a scandal over the firing of U.S. attorneys; she decided in 2010 that no charges were warranted.

Now, Ms. Dannehy complained to Mr. Durham about how Mr. Barr kept hinting darkly in public about the direction of their investigation. In April 2020, for example, he suggested to Fox News that officials could be prosecuted, saying that “the evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here.”

Ms. Dannehy urged Mr. Durham to ask the attorney general to adhere to Justice Department policy and not discuss the investigation publicly. But Mr. Durham proved unwilling to challenge him.

The strains grew when Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to go after Mr. Benardo’s emails. Ms. Dannehy opposed that tactic and told colleagues that Mr. Durham had taken that step without telling her.

By summer 2020, with Election Day approaching, Mr. Barr pressed Mr. Durham to draft a potential interim report centered on the Clinton campaign and F.B.I. gullibility or willful blindness.

On Sept. 10, 2020, Ms. Dannehy discovered that other members of the team had written a draft report that Mr. Durham had not told her about, according to people briefed on their ensuing argument.

Ms. Dannehy erupted, according to people familiar with the matter. She told Mr. Durham that no report should be issued before the investigation was complete and especially not just before an election — and denounced the draft for taking disputed information at face value. She sent colleagues a memo detailing those concerns and resigned.

Two people close to Mr. Barr said he had pressed for the draft to evaluate what a report on preliminary findings would look like and what evidence would need to be declassified. But they insisted that he intended any release to come during the summer or after the Nov. 3 election — not soon before Election Day.

In any case, in late September 2020, about two weeks after Ms. Dannehy quit, someone leaked to a Fox Business personality that Mr. Durham would not issue any interim report, disappointing Trump supporters hoping for a pre-Election Day bombshell.

Stymied by the decision not to issue an interim Durham report, John Ratcliffe, Mr. Trump’s national intelligence director, tried another way to inject some of the same information into the campaign.

Over the objections of Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, Mr. Ratcliffe declassified nearly 1,000 pages of intelligence material before the election for Mr. Durham to use. Notably, in that fight, Mr. Barr sided with Ms. Haspel on one matter that is said to be particularly sensitive and that remained classified, according to two people familiar with the dispute.

Mr. Ratcliffe also disclosed in a letter to a senator that “Russian intelligence analysis” claimed that on July 26, 2016, Mrs. Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal tying Mr. Trump to Russia.

The letter acknowledged that officials did “not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.” But it did not mention that there were many reasons that suspicions about the Trump campaign were arising in that period — like the diplomat’s tip, Mr. Trump’s flattery of President Vladimir V. Putin, his hiring of advisers with links to Russia, his financial ties to Russia and his call for Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.

The disclosure infuriated Dutch intelligence officials, who had provided the memos under strictest confidence.

‘Fanning the Flames’
Late in the summer of 2021, Mr. Durham prepared to indict Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer who had represented Democrats in their dealings with the F.B.I. about Russia’s hacking of their emails. Two prosecutors on Mr. Durham’s team — Anthony Scarpelli and Neeraj N. Patel — objected, according to people familiar with the matter.

Five years earlier, Mr. Sussmann had relayed a tip to the bureau about odd internet data that a group of data scientists contended could reflect hidden communications between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank of Russia. The F.B.I., which by then had already launched its Russia investigation, briefly looked at the allegation but dismissed it.

Mr. Durham accused Mr. Sussmann of lying to an F.B.I. official by saying he was not conveying the tip for a client; the prosecutor maintained Mr. Sussmann was there in part for the Clinton campaign.

Mr. Scarpelli and Mr. Patel argued to Mr. Durham that the evidence was too thin to charge Mr. Sussmann and that such a case would not normally be prosecuted, people familiar with the matter said. Given the intense scrutiny it would receive, they also warned that an acquittal would undermine public faith in their investigation and federal law enforcement.

When Mr. Durham did not change course, Mr. Scarpelli quit in protest, people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Patel left soon after to take a different job. Both declined to comment.

The charge against Mr. Sussmann was narrow, but the Durham team used it to make public large amounts of information insinuating what Mr. Durham never charged: that Clinton campaign associates conspired to gin up an F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Trump based on a knowingly false allegation.

Trial testimony, however, showed that while Mrs. Clinton and her campaign manager hoped Mr. Sussmann would persuade reporters to write articles about Alfa Bank, they did not want him to take the information to the F.B.I. And prosecutors presented no evidence that he or campaign officials had believed the data scientists’ complex theory was false.

After Mr. Sussmann’s acquittal, Mr. Barr, by then out of office for more than a year, suggested that using the courts to advance a politically charged narrative was a goal in itself. Mr. Durham “accomplished something far more important” than a conviction, Mr. Barr told Fox News, asserting that the case had “crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching as a dirty trick the whole Russiagate collusion narrative and fanning the flames of it.”

And he predicted that a subsequent trial, concerning a Russia analyst who was a researcher for the Steele dossier, would also “get the story out” and “further amplify these themes and the role the F.B.I. leadership played in this, which is increasingly looking fishy and inexplicable.”

That case involved Igor Danchenko, who had told the F.B.I. that the dossier exaggerated the credibility of gossip and speculation. Mr. Durham charged him with lying about two sources. He was acquitted, too.

The two failed cases are likely to be Mr. Durham’s last courtroom acts as a prosecutor. Bringing demonstrably weak cases stood in contrast to how he once talked about his prosecutorial philosophy.

James Farmer, a retired prosecutor who worked with Mr. Durham on several major investigations, recalled him as a neutral actor who said that if there were nothing to charge, they would not strain to prosecute. “That’s what I heard, time and again,” Mr. Farmer said.

Delivering the closing arguments in the Danchenko trial, Mr. Durham defended his investigation to the jury, denying that his appointment by Mr. Barr had been tainted by politics.

He asserted that Mr. Mueller had concluded “there’s no evidence of collusion here or conspiracy” — a formulation that echoed Mr. Trump’s distortion of the Russia investigation’s complex findings — and added: “Is it the wrong question to ask, well, then how did this get started? Respectfully, that’s not the case.”

The judge interrupted him: “You should finish up, Mr. Durham.”

It’s looking like Trump appointed Bill Barr who appointed John Durham who spent $6.5 million to uncover “misconduct” in the Trump-Russia probe using Russian Intel but the only crimes Durham uncovered were crimes committed by Trump. And then they hid it?
Maybe this new House committee will look into it…
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device