Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Jonathan Turley Bills Durham Report A Success 'Despite A Lack Of Evidence' Which Is The Most Jonathan Turley Sentence Ever
And I commend the Eagles on their Super Bowl championship despite a lack of points.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/jona...k-of-evidence/

Remind anyone of a not-too-bright member here?

Leave it to you to celebrate an article where the author takes one sentence from Turley's blog, quotes it completely out of context, and then writes an opinion/hit piece about Turley based on that single sentence. Its funny that the author provides a link to Turley's blog post WAY at the bottom of the page like he's trying to hide it. A journalistic best practice, if you're going to quote from a source on the internet, is to provide the link adjacent to or within the quote.

Well done, lefty butt-boy.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Jonathan Turley Bills Durham Report A Success 'Despite A Lack Of Evidence' Which Is The Most Jonathan Turley Sentence Ever
And I commend the Eagles on their Super Bowl championship despite a lack of points.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/jona...k-of-evidence/

Remind anyone of a not-too-bright member here?

To these MAGAMorons, a complete lack of evidence is proof of a diabolical cover-up of the "crime of the century."

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Leave it to you to celebrate an article where the author takes one sentence from Turley's blog, quotes it completely out of context, and then writes an opinion/hit piece about Turley based on that single sentence. Its funny that the author provides a link to Turley's blog post WAY at the bottom of the page like he's trying to hide it. A journalistic best practice, if you're going to quote from a source on the internet, is to provide the link adjacent to or within the quote.

Well done, lefty butt-boy.

"Lefty butt boy"? Coming out of the closet, are we? Do your wife and kids know?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Leave it to you to celebrate an article where the author takes one sentence from Turley's blog, quotes it completely out of context, and then writes an opinion/hit piece about Turley based on that single sentence. Its funny that the author provides a link to Turley's blog post WAY at the bottom of the page like he's trying to hide it. A journalistic best practice, if you're going to quote from a source on the internet, is to provide the link adjacent to or within the quote.

Well done, lefty butt-boy.

The bottom line is that you (and Turley) will seek any deflection not to discuss what we know to be true about actual coordination/communication between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump's reaction to (and willingness to accept) known assistance by Russia, Trump's subsequent obstruction of justice efforts and the multiple indictments/convictions/pleas of Trump staff & cronies secured by Mueller.

Better to spin up and create confusion around the FBI/DOJ where the only proven malfeasance in this case was the Carter Page FISA warrant (long since adjudicated) which played zero role in the initiation of the investigation.

The emotional energy that you have wrapped up in trying to convince yourself and others that Trump, a known fraud, is squeaky clean in an affair in which he is not squeaky clean is truly a sight to behold. No matter. He's been indicted for other felonies and more indictments are likely soon. You need to accept that he's a malignant narcissist, pathological liar and fraud and move on, son.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, you didn't like NPR and NBC as sources? Apparently, you didn't learn your lesson the last time I posted this link the Volume one of the Mueller Report: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco...73816/download

Quoted from the Mueller Report: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

"Did not establish" is not the same as "did not find any evidence", and the Barr Senate committee did.

PS: Someone should edit your posts for content since it's mostly verbal diarrhea and seems to be intentional to interject false information.

[RickeyM]

You know what they say. "Garbage in - garbage out".

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

I certainly did read your factually-challenged post. Here, let me help you out a bit, because it appears that you may have forgotten what you actually said:

The boob still has no concept of facts vs opinion. There are several facts in my post.

1. Mueller said Trump committed obstruction of justice.
2. Muller dod not absolve Trump of indictable behavior, he only said that current DOJ policy prohibits federal indictment of a sitting president.
3. Trump requested hacking of Clinton's email servers by the Russians. Which you decided was just a joke. Any comment Trump makes that gets him into trouble is a joke in your opinion and according to MAGA cult twits.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

The boob still has no concept of facts vs opinion. There are several facts in my post.

1. Mueller said Trump committed obstruction of justice.
2. Muller dod not absolve Trump of indictable behavior, he only said that current DOJ policy prohibits federal indictment of a sitting president.
3. Trump requested hacking of Clinton's email servers by the Russians. Which you decided was just a joke. Any comment Trump makes that gets him into trouble is a joke in your opinion and according to MAGA cult twits.

Still want your own facts Ike? Sorry. but:

1) Wrong. Here are his exact words. “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.” The report details acts that MAY have been Trump exerting influence, but the report did not characterize these acts as obstruction.
2) Again, the word used was "exculpate". This means that Mueller found no exculpatory evidence. Nor did he recommend to the DOJ that charges be pursued. DOJ policy notwithstanding, Mueller could have recommended prosecution and turned the case over to the DOJ like a hot potato. That didn't happen.
3) I didn't decide it was a joke. Trump stated it was a joke. The left continues to reject that statement because it doesn't comport with the collusion narrative.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

"Did not establish" is not the same as "did not find any evidence", and the Barr Senate committee did.

PS: Someone should edit your posts for content since it's mostly verbal diarrhea and seems to be intentional to interject false information.

Mueller's investigation couldn't establish it because there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. Does that make you feel better? We still end up in the same place: Mueller didn't or couldn't prove that the allegations that were rampant on the mainstream press amounted to collusion, or coordination, or conspiracy, or whatever folks were calling it back then.

Further, the IG and Durham found that the FBI and Intel were relying disproportionately on what they knew was a product of the Clinton campaign to further their "investigation.

"False information"? Quite the opposite is what I'm providing sir.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Mueller's investigation couldn't establish it because there wasn't sufficient evidence to do so. Does that make you feel better? We still end up in the same place: Mueller didn't or couldn't prove that the allegations that were rampant on the mainstream press amounted to collusion, or coordination, or conspiracy, or whatever folks were calling it back then.

Further, the IG and Durham found that the FBI and Intel were relying disproportionately on what they knew was a product of the Clinton campaign to further their "investigation.

"False information"? Quite the opposite is what I'm providing sir.

Sir, you make no sense with that statement.

Verbatim: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.

The special counsel’s remarks stood as a pointed rebuttal to Trump’s repeated claims that he was cleared and that the two-year inquiry was merely a “witch hunt.” They also marked a counter to criticism, including by Attorney General William Barr, that Mueller should have reached a determination on whether the president illegally tried to obstruct the probe by taking actions such as firing his FBI director.

Mueller made clear that his team never considered indicting Trump because the Justice Department prohibits the prosecution of a sitting president.

“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said during a televised statement . He said he believed such an action would be unconstitutional.

So no foul was called, not because there was no foul. In basketball its known as a no call.

You keep posting volumes on the IG, Durham, surprised you don't being up Sen Richard Burr, but I will for the nth time.

WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday 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.

Now that does make me feel better since I got the last word on this.
Dismissed. (BG)