Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Good lord! That's not what Mueller said. Mueller said he had not exonerated Trump. And he said that the Russians had clearly interfered in the 2016 election. And we all saw Trump in front of the cameras telling the Russians that they should go ahead and hack his opponent's email servers.

Ol' Whell has those blinders screwed down tight. Poor soul...

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Good lord! That's not what Mueller said. Mueller said he had not exonerated Trump. And he said that the Russians had clearly interfered in the 2016 election. And we all saw Trump in front of the cameras telling the Russians that they should go ahead and hack his opponent's email servers.

Originally Posted by bobabode

Ol' Whell has those blinders screwed down tight. Poor soul...

Man, you guys insist on having your own facts. Its EXACTLY what the Mueller report said specific to Russian collusion, which was what the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was about, and Crossfire Hurricane is what the Durham report was about.

Don't want to take my word for it? Here:
Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion

As we've been discussing this hour, the special counsel did not find that President Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government - that according to a summary of the conclusions delivered by the - Attorney General William Barr to the Congress.

Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia; AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

The crap about Mueller "not exonerating": that's media spin. The media has reported that Trump was not exonerated in his behavior by the Mueller report, and that Mueller and company simply found insufficient criminal evidence to prosecute.

The fact is that prosecutors - special, federal, or otherwise - have no ability in our legal system to exonerate the accused. In fact, the term "exonerated" is actually misused here. You can't be exonerated until you've been convicted.

But, since you brought it up, here's what Mueller did say:

“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.”

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Man, you guys insist on having your own facts. Its EXACTLY what the Mueller report said specific to Russian collusion, which was what the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was about, and Crossfire Hurricane is what the Durham report was about.

Don't want to take my word for it? Here:
Mueller Report Finds No Evidence Of Russian Collusion

As we've been discussing this hour, the special counsel did not find that President Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government - that according to a summary of the conclusions delivered by the - Attorney General William Barr to the Congress.

Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia; AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

The crap about Mueller "not exonerating": that's media spin. The media has reported that Trump was not exonerated in his behavior by the Mueller report, and that Mueller and company simply found insufficient criminal evidence to prosecute.

The fact is that prosecutors - special, federal, or otherwise - have no ability in our legal system to exonerate the accused. In fact, the term "exonerated" is actually misused here. You can't be exonerated until you've been convicted.

But, since you brought it up, here's what Mueller did say:

“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.”

Speaking of "spin", don't you ever get dizzy? smh

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Still want your own facts Ike? Sorry. but:

1. DOJ policy notwithstanding, Mueller could have recommended prosecution and turned the case over to the DOJ like a hot potato. That didn't happen.

2. I didn't decide it was a joke.

1. Sorry but: What a stupid fucking comment. We knew from the beginning that Mueller complied with DOJ policies, when he took the assignment...and that there would be no recommendstion for a DOJ indictment. But you say he could have? I suppose he could have, he could have also fucked your grandmother.

2. You said he was "trolling Hillary". You saw it as a fucking joke. If you're not gonna stand behind the things you say...you’re a useless plonker.