Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[finnbow]

From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (chaired by Richard Burr (R-NC) report. In a nutshell, what's true in the Durham report isn't new; and what's new isn't true.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You are quoting the Bill Barr mischaracterization of the Mueller Report, something that Mueller himself rejected as misleading? Jeez.

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."

Originally Posted by finnbow

You sure do invest a lot of emotional energy trying to convince yourself (and others) that Trump isn't a lawless traitor to America and its ideals. It's a fool's errand.

You do spend a lot of effort spinning my comments. Why is it that when I refer to the Mueller Report, which we are led to believe is not a compromised political product, you then point to the Senate Intel Investigation, which is a product of politicians and not law enforcement personnel?

Why, when I'm talking about Crossfire Hurricane, and Mueller's and Durham's review of those efforts, do you change the subject to the hearings from the Intel committee as you have in the post above?

Maybe it's because the product of politicians comports with your chosen narrative, but the product of career Justice Dept and law enforcement professionals does not?

In any case, I find your constant efforts to deflect and divert fascinating.

[Chicks]

Trump couldn't possibly be a Russian asset...could he?
https://www.rawstory.com/amp/trump-r...set-2660287253

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

Why is it that when I refer to the Mueller Report, which we are led to believe is not a compromised political product, you then point to the Senate Intel Investigation, which is a product of politicians and not law enforcement personnel?

Anyhow - the gnashing of teeth over the failure to achieve a coronation:

This failure has unleased powerful forces which have hampered the US strategic vision, despite the efforts of many including Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Austin.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Anyhow - the gnashing of teeth over the failure to achieve a coronation:

This failure has unleased powerful forces which have hampered the US strategic vision, despite the efforts of many including Henry Kissinger and Lloyd Austin.

I'm trying my damnedest to flush the excrement that is Henry Kissinger out of my memory banks. Kissinger knew that Nixon had committed treason in the weeks immediately preceding the 1968 election, and yet he agreed to become Nixon's Secretary of State anyway. Which in my book makes him a party to Nixon's treason. And he tolerated or outright supported war crimes committed by allied nation states during his time as Nixon's Secretary of State. Kissinger is a war criminal.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Man, you guys insist on having your own facts.

Read my post, you twit. What I said about 2016 is that Mueller reported that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. And then I said that we all saw and heard Donald Trump invite the Russians to hack his opponent's email servers. That constitutes collusion.

Can you fuckin' read? Do you have a reading comprehension disorder?

Your post above, like all your other posts, and the statements of every other MAGA schmuck of your ilk on the subject, has suggested that Mueller cleared Trump of any wrongdoing when he did not recommend an indicment. That is a fucking lie. What Mueller acutally did was remind us of the two internal DOJ memos that made it DOJ policy that a sitting president could not be criminally charged by the Department of Justice. Mueller clearly reported that Trump had committed obstruction of justice when he ordered Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Pay fucking attention.

[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?

[donquixote99]

We don't need no steenkin evidence....

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Read my post, you twit. What I said about 2016 is that Mueller reported that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. And then I said that we all saw and heard Donald Trump invite the Russians to hack his opponent's email servers. That constitutes collusion.

Can you fuckin' read? Do you have a reading comprehension disorder?

Pay fucking attention.

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:

You responded were responding to this post, where I was responding to the comments of another forum member. I stated that Mueller's report didn't find any evidence of "collusion". You responded with this:

"That's not what Mueller said. Mueller said he had not exonerated Trump."

Now, clearly, as I've posted here multiple times, Mueller's report DID state that his investigation "...did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Nor does a prosecutor have standing under the law to "exonerate" anyone. I believe the term that Mueller actually used was "exculpate", which is a bit different than "exonerate". But, whatever.

That statement from the Mueller report, even to an ignorant blockhead like you, renders your statement above - "that's not what Mueller said" - absolutely false. This promoted my observation that folks like you appear to want to have their own facts. Mueller's report is out there for anyone to read. The quote above is on page 2 of Volume 1 of the Mueller report.

You then stated that Trump's public comment about missing emails - which was obviously a comment that was meant to troll Hillary - is, to you, collusion. I hate to tell you this, but in this case, no one gives a crap what you define as collusion. Least of all Mueller, who states in his testimony to Congress:

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

Back on topic to Durham's report, here's what Durham said about "collusion":

"Neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the special counsel found.

Durham said there was "significant reliance on investigative leads" provided or funded by Trump's opponents.

So, yes I did read your post. It simply demonstrated, as stated, that you wish to have your own facts. If that's what helps you sleep at night, well....good for you.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

We don't need no steenkin evidence....

Apparently, that holds true for you, other folks here, and the FBI folks who participated in Crossfire Hurricane.