Now we’re getting into areas of just merely learning some details and getting some clarity about what was going on in all those doings. At this point, for me, just getting a decent picture of what happened and how and why it happened would be enough, regardless of whether anyone goes to jail, or gets ruined, or what have you.
1 Like
It has been a PITA to follow this for so long, but that was the intent, I suppose. Thank the flob and her troops for keeping the thing alive when most lost interest.
2 Likes
Many of Durham’s actions Wednesday vindicated his critics’ main complaint – that he has used his trials to push a dubious narrative of intentional government misconduct against Trump, and of a far-reaching conspiracy by Democrats to smear Trump, without ever actually charging it.
The stakes are high for Durham, who has taken on an unprecedented role in this trial by personally handling most arguments and questioning so far. His inquiry is winding down after more than three years, and he has only secured one guilty plea from an FBI lawyer that resulted in zero jail time. His only other case, against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer, ended with a swift jury acquittal in May.
That’s the way they’ll sell proven fraudulent efforts by the Dems to engineer a Russia conspiracy theory funneled into a bureaucracy that in the end–wait for it–spit out a massive Russia conspiracy theory! Whoa, how could that have happened? Not by the oh-so-proper Dems, right? Lol.
Any of this stuff if done by Trump would be trumpeted to no end. There would be endless talk about the final page being turned, the light at the end of the tunnel, etc. etc. etc.
4 Likes
What’s the way? Yelling at your own witness because he doesn’t say what you want him to say?
It seems the point has gone over your head. What a shock.
2 Likes
Lol. It seems when things don’t go your way you become condescending. Lol.
That’s so far from not going my way it’s not even funny. Anyway, you’re totally condescending all the time. If you don’t like it, tough luck.
1 Like
I don’t care just noticing a pattern when someone posts information counter to your narrative. Cheers.
I know you don’t care, your posting (like posting the silly non-sequitur in response to my comment above) screams it constantly. It’s only point scoring and nay-saying.
1 Like
2 Likes
The peddling of a false narrative of Trump collusion with Russia was a product of the Clinton campaign and the FBI. Voluminous reports by the Justice Department’s inspector general have demonstrated that the bureau’s hierarchy was seized by anti-Trump animus. The FBI knowingly allowed itself to be fed partisan opposition research that was sensational, salacious, often flat-out ridiculous, but always — because it portrayed Trump as a traitorous lout — too good to check.
Pretty much.
1 Like
Igor Danchenko, the primary source for the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, was acquitted Tuesday of four counts of lying to the FBI in an embarrassing defeat for special counsel John Durham.
Durham has taken two cases to trial, and both have ended in acquittals. After more than three years looking for misconduct in the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, Durham has only secured one conviction: the guilty plea of a low-level FBI lawyer, who got probation.
The jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges against Danchenko, a Russian expat and think tank analyst who provided the bulk of the material for the anti-Trump dossier. Durham initially charged Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI, but a judge threw out one of the charges on Friday.
The fact that after three years or investigation Durham only managed to get one low level conviction (resulting in probation) just shows how deep the conspiracy goes!
2 Likes
So Durham’s key witnesses end up helping the defense, and two cases ending in acquittal. 85% of Federal defendants in a jury trial receive a conviction so those are some piss poor results to lose both back to back.
What a joke.
Dirtiest campaign against an elected President carried out by the FBI and DOJ ever.
An affront to the people who elected him. Doesn’t surprise me you think it’s a joke. An absolute corrupt Washington DC system from top to bottom, from law enforcement to media who are supposed to be watchdogs.
1 Like
Dirtiest president elected ever (before, during, and after office) gets the most scrutiny and investigation ever. Trump’s predecessors did not even come close, but it is hard to convince someone with an already set-in-stone perspective otherwise, especially if said someone already knows this and is just trying to obfuscate the disparity.
Hopefully the US won’t make the mistake of electing someone as corrupt, unethical, and compromised as Trump again. Not saying the other entities you are referring to are angelic and spotless, but my god it really takes some mental gymnastics not to come to the conclusion that Trump et al are a different tier of corruption entirely. He is certainly not a victim – play stupid games win stupid prizes.
1 Like
I’m all for Trump stepping out of politics, and you are entitled to hate him as much as you want.
But defend what the establishment did in trying to take down someone who was elected by the people, lacks any moral compass at all.
Maybe you would be happier if Washington DC just made all the decisions themselves as they know best and remove the people out of the equation all together, kind of like how the CCP operates.
The majority of Americans seem to have figured out that’s what they are doing anyway.
There is a vast middle ground here. But you know that 
I’m all for doing what is needed for the greater good. Trump being out of the equation is for the greater good of the political environment in my country.
There is quite a bit of bipartisan support for that ^ statement, thankfully.
As for your continuation of demonizing the US “establishment”: while there is certainly room for them to be criticized (and the freedom to as well! 
) I am not sure if any country’s “establishment” can meet your lofty standard. Just as "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”, I would posit that the US “establishment” continues to be the “best of the worst” regarding the “establishments” of all large, developed countries that are realistic candidates for global hegemon. Would you disagree?
Yeah, the ends justify the means is the logic, I understand that.
It’s not for Washington DC to decide who or what’s best for the country, in a democracy the people decide who get’s to govern them and they get to decide based on policies politicians propose.
You want a democracy or an autocracy? It’s a rhetorical question because I think you have made your choice and I have made mine and we will agree to disagree on the desired method of governance.