Durham's Investigations Fizzles

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Circular logic, half-truths, and insults are all you have left.

My post was 100% true and you're the one defending Durham's ill-fated snipe hunt that traded in innuendo and half-truths and failed to find any illegal conduct (after 4 years and $6.5 million) after Trump promised it would uncover the "crime of the century."

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by the truth, but that seems to be a common MAGA trait. The Durham investigation, along with Gym Jordan and James Comer's shitshow of stupidity, represent the epitome of the "weaponization" of government that they purported to reveal.

[RickeyM]

When you think about it they did reveal the "weaponization" of government. They put it and themselves on full display for all of America.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

No, I think I had it right.

... but you are entitled to your own opinion.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

My post was 100% true and you're the one defending Durham's ill-fated snipe hunt that traded in innuendo and half-truths and failed to find any illegal conduct (after 4 years and $6.5 million) after Trump promised it would uncover the "crime of the century."

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by the truth

The truth is actually more bothersome that your recycled talking points that we've discussed before, such as: Your post characterized as "100% true" is contrasted with the fact that the Mueller probe gained indictments or convictions that:

1) Failed to prove any "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign, which is the "big fish" that the Dems were hoping to catch.
2) Includes the convictions of folks like Papadapolous for "lying to the FBI". What was the lie? He misstated the timing of his meeting with Joseph Mifsud, who was the source for the statement that we now find out Papadapolous never made. This is also fascinating because this is the same DC court where Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko were found not guilty of the same thing.
3) Bitching about the Durham probe with its $6.5 MM price which in a $4 trillion Federal budget is akin to a rounding error, is funny. Mueller's investigation cost $16.8 MM and gave us:
- indictments of 13 Russians who will never face a trial in the US.
- A few "lying to the FBI" convictions which, if the Sussmann and Danchenko trials taught us anything, really isn't a crime.
- A couple crimes related to "not registering as an agent for a foreign government (i.e., Maria Butina).
- Lying to Congress
- Tax evasion and bank fraud.

Conspicuously missing from this list are any convictions for "Russian Collusion".

[RickeyM]

But plenty of evidence of TGF's obstruction but you don't want to seem to acknowledge that.
I sure wish those out there barking about Biden's supposed corruption would apply the same "no proof" metric. IJS

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

The truth is actually more bothersome that your recycled talking points that we've discussed before, such as: Your post characterized as "100% true" is contrasted with the fact that the Mueller probe gained indictments or convictions that:

1) Failed to prove any "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign, which is the "big fish" that the Dems were hoping to catch.

Conspicuously missing from this list are any convictions for "Russian Collusion".

Everytime you keep repeating this lie, I am going to refute it. Saying Mueller did not find collusion is a LIE.

“If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he said.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...aid-so-841450/

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Everytime you keep repeating this lie, I am going to refute it. Saying Mueller did not find collusion is a LIE.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...aid-so-841450/

You're misquoting Mueller. The quote you posted was in response to Nadler's question about obstruction, not "collusion":

NADLER:

Thank you. Thank you. We will now proceed, under the five-minute rule, with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER:

Correct. That is not what the report said.

NADLER:

Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER:

No.

NADLER:

In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Well, we at the outset determined that we -- when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to -- we needed -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president -- sitting president cannot be indicted.
NADLER:

So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER:

That is correct.
NADLER:

And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

MUELLER:

No.
NADLER:

Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.

MUELLER:

It does.

NADLER:

And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

Suggestions -

1) Before you call someone a liar, you might want to get your own facts straight.

2) All of this BULLSHIT with the Mueller investigation is undercut by one simple fact: Obama, Biden, Brennan, Comey, Lynch ALL KNEW that the genesis of this entire narrative was the Clinton Campaign as early as August 2016, and probably earlier. Crossfire Hurricane was an FBI investigation based on a lie and razor-thin evidence that spun out of control in an effort to put meat on that narrative, which had its origins in a political dirty tricks operation executed by the Clinton campaign. Why did Clinton need to generate a story about Russian collusion? To deflect from her own scandal regarding her email server, where we learned that trafficking in top secret documents and communications was apparently something that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges for.

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

But plenty of evidence of TGF's obstruction but you don't want to seem to acknowledge that.
I sure wish those out there barking about Biden's supposed corruption would apply the same "no proof" metric. IJS

I have acknowledged it a number of times. The bottom line: Mueller exercised his prosecutorial authority and declined to pursue charges. It happens every day in America.

That said, I have a question for you, and yes its a hypothetical so you don't need to respond to it.

If you were President at that time, and you knew that the stuff being published in the paper was false but being repeated as "fact" and supported by unnamed sources, you knew that what your political opponents were saying was false, would you react? Would you ask your acting AG not to appoint a special prosecutor? Would you fire your FBI director, who treated information in a "dossier" that he knew to be false as information that was appropriate for a presidential briefing (and who, quite frankly, behaved in an absolutely inexplicable manner as it relates to the Clinton email investigation)? In doing any of the above, would you consider yourself as someone who was obstructing justice, or would you think that you were trying to stop a miscarriage of justice?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

You're misquoting Mueller. The quote you posted was in response to Nadler's question about obstruction, not "collusion":

NADLER:

Thank you. Thank you. We will now proceed, under the five-minute rule, with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER:

Correct. That is not what the report said.

NADLER:

Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment," close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER:

No.

NADLER:

In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Well, we at the outset determined that we -- when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to -- we needed -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president -- sitting president cannot be indicted.
NADLER:

So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER:

That is correct.
NADLER:

And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

MUELLER:

No.
NADLER:

Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.

MUELLER:

It does.

NADLER:

And your investigation actually found, quote, "multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

Suggestions -

1) Before you call someone a liar, you might want to get your own facts straight.

2) All of this BULLSHIT with the Mueller investigation is undercut by one simple fact: Obama, Biden, Brennan, Comey, Lynch ALL KNEW that the genesis of this entire narrative was the Clinton Campaign as early as August 2016, and probably earlier. Crossfire Hurricane was an FBI investigation based on a lie and razor-thin evidence that spun out of control in an effort to put meat on that narrative, which had its origins in a political dirty tricks operation executed by the Clinton campaign. Why did Clinton need to generate a story about Russian collusion? To deflect from her own scandal regarding her email server, where we learned that trafficking in top secret documents and communications was apparently something that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges for.

YAWN. Yawn, yawn.

[Oerets]

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...o-his-report-5


""Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.""


"""The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office," they added. "Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

That wording leaves open the possibility that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice once he leaves office.""