John Durham Loses Case, Clinton Campaign Lawyer Acquitted

[Chicks]

Barr again spreads hoaxes to discredit Trump-Russia links, proving he's as crooked as ever

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/...al-lying-crook

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't disagree conceptually about the use of opposition research. Look at how WaPo, NY Times, and others willing pushed the Russia Collusion narrative fueled by endless leaks from "unnamed sources"...

The jury ultimately decided (both or either) that the prosecution failed to prove that at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, or that a case about lying to the FBI has no currency in the US justice system

The "Russia Collusion narrative" resulted in seven guilty pleas and five people sentenced to prison and showed that Trump, through Roger Stone, did indeed communicate with Wikileaks (and Wikileaks to Russia) and that Trump was negotiating with Russia for a hotel deal (while lying about it). It also showed 4 cut-and-dry cases of obstruction of justice by Trump which Mueller asserted contributed to his inability to bring a conspiracy case against Trump.

As for the Sussman case, the prosecution also failed to show materiality, an essential element of this charge because the FBI was already investigating Trump anyway. Also, the jury foreperson publicly said that the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Barr/Durham.

Here's another takedown of Barr's political motivation behind this case.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/return-angry-political-man

In short, Barr, in a (failed) attempt to show political motivations behind the Russia/Mueller investigation himself engaged in an unwarranted and politically motivated prosecution.

[finnbow]

Here's another brutal takedown of Barr's dishonest political "investigations" which revealed that Trump's "unmasking" allegations and the Sussman trial were both about telling stories Trump wanted told and not pursuing justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

[donquixote99]

^^^ broken link. Good read for sure. Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

[Chicks]

They all run to Faux "News" to spout their falsehoods. Durham will no doubt write a book, and become a "consultant" at Faux, making tons of money, just like the disgusting Kenny Starr. Faux "News" needs to be shut down as a terrorist organization, and the entire Murdoch family deported or jailed.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

^^^ broken link. Good read for sure. Here it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

Thanks. Fix it too.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's another brutal takedown of Barr's dishonest political "investigations" which revealed that Trump's "unmasking" allegations and the Sussman trial were both about telling stories Trump wanted told and not pursuing justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-probes-bogus/

Another brilliant column from the esteemed Dana Milbank.

[bobabode]

Billy 'Low' Barr makes John Mitchell look like a piker.

Lock his ass up in gen. pop. Leavenworth, not that cushy joint in Allenwood, Pa.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The "Russia Collusion narrative" resulted in seven guilty pleas and five people sentenced to prison and showed that Trump, through Roger Stone, did indeed communicate with Wikileaks (and Wikileaks to Russia) and that Trump was negotiating with Russia for a hotel deal (while lying about it). It also showed 4 cut-and-dry cases of obstruction of justice by Trump which Mueller asserted contributed to his inability to bring a conspiracy case against Trump.

As for the Sussman case, the prosecution also failed to show materiality, an essential element of this charge because the FBI was already investigating Trump anyway. Also, the jury foreperson publicly said that the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Barr/Durham.

I do appreciate you making my point for me. What were most of the convictions or pleas the stemmed from the Mueller investigation really about? Lying or making false statements, in most cases to the FBI. Apparently when folks related to Trump do it, its a victory to get them convicted or to get them to cop a plea. When someone tied to the Clinton Campaign does it: "...the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time."

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I do appreciate you making my point for me. What were most of the convictions or pleas the stemmed from the Mueller investigation really about? Lying or making false statements, in most cases to the FBI. Apparently when folks related to Trump do it, its a victory to get them convicted or to get them to cop a plea. When someone tied to the Clinton Campaign does it: "...the case should have never been brought and was a complete waste of time."

Not all cases are alike. Mueller's perjury/lying to FBI cases had irrefutable evidence and materiality (hence the guilty pleas). Durham's had neither.

Also, I remember you whining about the Mueller cases being about "process crimes" that shouldn't be prosecuted. You seem to be changing your tune now.