Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[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.

[finnbow]

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?

Somehow you take the fact that Mueller didn't indict Trump (due to Trump's successful obstruction efforts and DOJ's policy of not indicting a president) as a clear indicator of his innocence even though Mueller did detail the obstruction efforts and indict and convict five Trump campaign operatives (George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen) and 26 Russians who helped the Trump campaign .

You sure have a strange idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior by a president and inappropriate behavior by DOJ. It is not as though Trump hasn't clearly demonstrated his absolute contempt for the rule of law and fealty to Putin since then.

Meanwhile,

The Georgia prosecutor leading an investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his allies has taken the unusual step of announcing remote work days for most of her staff during the first three weeks of August, asking judges in a downtown Atlanta courthouse not to schedule trials for part of that time as she prepares to bring charges in the inquiry. The moves suggest that Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, is expecting a grand jury to unseal indictments during that time period.

It'll be fun watching you portray the revelations of these forthcoming indictments as evidence of a "perfect phone call," just as you've willingly parroted the "no collusion, no obstruction" mantra, notwithstanding the demonstrated coordination between Trump staff and Russia and obstruction of justice by Trump.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

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.

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.

It makes perfect sense if you consider that this Mueller investigation was really about shielding the FBI from criticism by providing an alternative narrative.

Never forget that the President and his National Security Advisory Group, the CIA, Justice, and the FBI knew that the "Russia collusion" narrative was a product of the Clinton campaign, specifically to deflect attention from her campaign's email issues. How did they know? Because Brennan and Ohr told them so. Despite this, Crossfire Hurricane was allowed to proceed. As that news started to come to light, Justice and the FBI needed something to deflect criticism, and the firing of Comey provided the open door to appointing a Special Counsel.

Hell, Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the info in the Dossier - specifically the pee-pee tape, in early 2017. He KNEW at that time the info was contrived.

As far as the Intel Committee investigation:
1) this thread is about the Durham report, but you guys seem to want to inject that report into this thread. Whatever.
2)It is the product of a political process, not a law enforcement process.
3) It contains information, and thus likely conclusions, that were based on info now known to be inaccurate. For example, the Intel investigation stated that the Steele dossier played no role in the various subpoena requests issued by the FBI. We now know that is not accurate.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It makes perfect sense if you consider that this Mueller investigation was really about shielding the FBI from criticism by providing an alternative narrative.

Never forget that the President and his National Security Advisory Group, the CIA, Justice, and the FBI knew that the "Russia collusion" narrative was a product of the Clinton campaign, specifically to deflect attention from her campaign's email issues. How did they know? Because Brennan and Ohr told them so. Despite this, Crossfire Hurricane was allowed to proceed. As that news started to come to light, Justice and the FBI needed something to deflect criticism, and the firing of Comey provided the open door to appointing a Special Counsel.

Hell, Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the info in the Dossier - specifically the pee-pee tape, in early 2017. He KNEW at that time the info was contrived.

As far as the Intel Committee investigation:
1) this thread is about the Durham report, but you guys seem to want to inject that report into this thread. Whatever.
2)It is the product of a political process, not a law enforcement process.
3) It contains information, and thus likely conclusions, that were based on info now known to be inaccurate. For example, the Intel investigation stated that the Steele dossier played no role in the various subpoena requests issued by the FBI. We now know that is not accurate.

You talk as if it was somehow inappropriate that the Hillary campaign chose to highlight Trump and his campaign's myriad very real interactions with the Russians or that DOJ chose to initiate a counterintelligence investigation into Russia's interference in our elections. It would have been inappropriate and professionally irresponsible not to have done so. Mueller's discovery of multiple instances of criminal activity by the Trump campaign is the fault of Trump and his campaign, not Mueller, Comey, Hillary or anyone else.

The real hoaxes in this whole Russian affair are Barr's deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller report and the subsequent (Barr-directed) Durham investigation, prosecutions and report. You've bought into both. Congrats. I hope it makes you feel better about your unwavering support of a Putin-hugging, election-denying pathological liar, malignant narcissist, and career fraud .

[Oerets]

Once the realization finally occurs, that Trump defenders are just easy marks. By nature easily led down the garden path. Willing to suspend critical thought, rational behavior. The need to be told what to believe think do by their leader/leaders.

Then knowing this will make all of their actions seem natural and expected for those affected.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

It makes perfect sense if you consider that this Mueller investigation was really about shielding the FBI from criticism by providing an alternative narrative.

You want to talk about everything but the crime.
Who appointed Mueller? (wiki)

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In this capacity, Mueller oversaw the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

Rosenstein worked in Trump's Justice Dept. and Mueller's appointment had bi-partisan support. And you want to blame the Hillary campaign for Mueller's investigation. Shielding the FBI? No, the Justice Dept. suspected the Trump campaign of collusion and for political neutrality, Mueller was appointed. Why didn't Trump fire Mueller if this was a political 'witch hunt", his usual retort. He would certainly been impeached (Tricky Dick anyone?).

Mueller was stymied by JD policy.
Barr papered over the final report to give Trump political cover.
The Senate committee nailed Trump.
IG found ample evidence of FBI's mishandling.
Now Durham throws more shit after utter failure to find any illegal actions by the FBI.

If there was no suspicion of guilt, there would have been no investigation.
Any other presidential campaigns ever been accused of collusion?
When alleged crooks run a campaign, there will always be a suspicion. Here there is proof. Ask Sen. Burr.

With you its all about the noise, not the underlying facts.

[RickeyM]

When tRump said he could stand on a corner of Fifth Ave., shoot someone and not lose any supporters, he was talking about whell. Not by name, but by association.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I hope it makes you feel better about your unwavering support of a Putin-hugging, election-denying pathological liar, malignant narcissist, and career fraud .

He's quite willing to ignore all that. It enables him to do what's important to him, which is to play on this board.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

He's quite willing to ignore all that. It enables him to do what's important to him, which is to play on this board.

While exposing ones ignorance more than one should.
One should take the product off the shelf if its not selling, not highlight its weaknesses.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Somehow you take the fact that Mueller didn't indict Trump (due to Trump's successful obstruction efforts and DOJ's policy of not indicting a president) as a clear indicator of his innocence ...

Please point me to any post where I stated that Trump was "innocent" or that Mueller, Durham or anyone else in the DC clown car stated this. Or are you just making shit up again because your other arguments have collapsed?