The people did decide in 2016 and 2020. Our system did what it was supposed to do despite the Trump campaign’s efforts to change the results.
1 Like
The majority of Americans disagree that happened in 2020.
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1577332467253628932
1 Like
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.
That’s it. For many, dirty tricks are OK when they’re on your side, democracy be damned.
2 Likes
It’s always known convictions were going to be hard to obtain here–it’s hard to convict someone of lying. Yet, Durham has revealed a great deal of anti-democratic machinations. Your comment is a red herring.
3 Likes
A survey of 1,000 people. Ok then! and what, you think 35% of the Dems in that measly figure of 1,000 “Likely Voters” thought cheating was involved to get Biden elected? Or, rather, this demographic suspected cheating was involved or at least attempted in order to make Trump closer to being the winner? You do realize Trump tried to get away with it in a few states such as Arizona?
How disingenuous this is. Disappointing really, you tried to pass this off as legitimate analysis, but I recall you pushing this same, fraudulent narrative before with virtually no-one batting an eye for some god forsaken reason. From the article:
It is accepted fact within just about every circle outside of the Q-anon circus and (publicly) Trump’s entourage that not even close to 50% of Americans have ever believed Trump was swindled out of 2020. Come back to reality please. It’s less convenient and fun, but the long-term benefits to your mental health outweigh the short-term withdrawal I assure you.
1 Like
Blah blah blah QAnon blah blah blah conspiracy theory blah blah blah tell that to the 55% of Americans who in the Rasmussen poll said they think cheating effected the outcome of the 2020 elections.
That’s despite the wall to wall coverage on every channel of MSM telling them it was the most secure election in history, ever.
Not me you need to convince, I’m just posting the stats.
Anyway, you already stated the end justify the means, I assume you include cheating, so I doubt you care one way or the other anyway.
1 Like
The courts have failed the population vis-a-vis the Durham investigation. The constitution has been critically subverted, this in itself being cause for dissolution of the entire federal gov’t except for military ranked captain or below … as allowed and now called for by same highly-at-risk national constitution.
I think it’s fine, Danchenko and Sussman were minor players in all this, the public was educated to what the FBI/DOJ were doing and frankly the role the media played in promoting the lies in the Steele dossier.
It was on the face of it absurd on first reading, some of the claims almost immediately disproven. But they went with lie after lie promoting the fiction for years demanding everyone believe there was truth to their lies.
Sad state of affairs.
1 Like
Well, there was this
“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” said the foreperson of the jury in Sussmann’s case, according to Politico.
Oh.
Understandable from one perspective, but the real problem has always been that the FBI doesn’t just give up its secrets, and how best to reveal them? True, it doesn’t really matter if Sussmann lied. The real question is, the FBI knew exactly who he was, so why did they happily take his politically loaded and false info at face value?
And here, they knew what Danchenko was, yet they concealed that and pushed the Steele dossier as far as it could go.
That’s why Durham deserves our praise. Under the circumstances, he has a motive to soft-pedal the FBI’s misconduct, to try to keep the jury focused on the defendant who is actually charged in the case.
Instead, Durham has done exactly the opposite. He has been transparent about the FBI’s malfeasance. It was Durham who proved that the FBI offered Steele a cool million bucks if he could prove his claims against Trump, and that neither Steele nor Danchenko could do so. It was Durham who proved that the FBI then swore four times that the unverified dossier information was verified. It was Durham who proved that even after finally interviewing Danchenko after the first two sworn applications, and hearing from him that the dossier was nonsense, the FBI continued relying on the anti-Trump dossier — willfully concealing Danchenko’s disavowal of it from the Justice Department and the court.
It was also Durham who proved that, even after the dossier debacle, the FBI signed Danchenko as a paid informant, lavishly paying him $200,000 over three years — with one agent unsuccessfully trying to get approval to pay him another $346,000 before the gravy train was finally derailed. Durham also proved that the agent who signed Danchenko as an informant falsely claimed to the bureau unit that monitors informants that there was no derogatory information about him. That is, the agent failed to check the bureau’s own records showing that the FBI had suspected Danchenko as a Russian asset. And that was only the most egregious of the rudimentary due-diligence failures to probe his background, motivations, and foreign government interactions.
1 Like
I like how both of quoted the first part and skipped the last part. Seems reasonable.
WTF kind of crazy talk is that? We don’t like the result so we should dissolve the government and install a military junta.
Sorry? Would you care to make a point about any parts?
That this is not justification to start a coup and that is why right wingers have the reputation of being a threat to democracy. People will believe this crap as justification to storm the capitol and smear feces on the wall. His investigation was a failure. That’s it. Move on.
It amazes how you spend so much time focusing on this and so little on a former president who literally tried to find extra votes.
I’m not justifying starting a coup. You can talk about that if you want, but I’m looking at the threats to democracy from the Democratic party and FBI at this time. That you want to just paper those things over (“His investigation was a failure. That’s it. Move on.”) only shows that you are interested in threats that don’t align with your political views but not others that do.
We hear about Trump all the time, you may have noticed. I’ve always been interested in developments there, and I continue to follow them. I’m amazed that you don’t care at all about efforts to deceitfully undermine a presidential candidate and then a legitimately elected president.
3 Likes
Techno Fog had a good write up and lists the things we learnt about the FBI from the trail.
- Director Comey was informed on all parts of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, from its beginnings up until (theoretically) his termination.
- FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson, who handed Danchenko as a confidential human source, omitted key derogatory information – that Danchenko was the target of a previous espionage case – in his opening paperwork.
- FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson was recommended to assess Danchenko’s employer and look at the financial nature of Danchenko’s employment. Helson failed to do so.
- FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson was recommended to investigate whether Danchenko lied in his visa and immigration documents. Helson failed to do so.
- FBI Special Agent Kevin Helson (there’s a purpose in the repetition ) was recommended to conduct a polygraph of Danchenko to determine if he “has ever been tasked by a foreign individual, entity or government to collect information or to perform actions adverse to the U.S. interest.” Helson failed to polygraph Danchenko.
- Crossfire Hurricane started based on “a suggestion of some kind of suggestion” from a “friendly foreign government.” It was opened as a “full investigation,” which allowed for the use of “investigative tools” not allowed at the “preliminary investigation stage.
- The FBI wanted a FISA on Carter Page “fairly early on” – around the end of July 2016 or soon thereafter. However, the FBI didn’t have enough to “secure” the warrant. The evidence wasn’t there.
- FBI Analyst Brian Auten was unable to “confirm or corroborate” any of the Steele Dossier claims from the receipt of the document until the first FISA application in October 2016.
- FBI Analyst Brian Auten and FBI colleague Stephen Somma knew Democrat Charles Dolan could be a source of information of the Steele Dossier. Neither asked Danchenko about Dolan.
- Dolan would ultimately testify that he believed some Dossier information came from him.
- The FBI checked with other agencies and was unable to corroborate the Dossier info.
- FBI Analyst Brian Auten is a “subject” of the Durham investigation and will likely be “suspended” by the FBI.
- Sergei Millian was a confidential human source (CHS) for the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office. The Crossfire Hurricane team found no evidence Millian had “assisted in the interference” of the 2016 presidential election.
- While Danchenko told the FBI he spoke with Millian. E-mails from Millian demonstrate he had no idea who Millian was. The FBI/Mueller Special Counsel never obtained those e-mails.
Still that’s it for Durham I guess, even his report to the AG some are suggesting don’t release it because it might hurt the feelings of those in the FBI. Up to the AG I guess and if there is any public pressure to release it.
I remember the meltdown the media had over the Mueller report, watch and see the media do the opposite for Durhams and try to censor it’s release, media being full on supporters of the authoritarian state.
2 Likes
So really, what we’ve learned is that the higher up appointments and their lackeys in then FBI don’t trust anyone not in the DC power system. It’s not that people don’t trust the FBI (well, now they don’t) but that in 2015 or so, the FBI didn’t trust anyone outside the channels of power.
I hear Durham will publish, but so what? No one can read anymore. Might just as well simplified the language in the last couple of years with the school shutdowns. The FBI is nothing if not opportunistic and it’s their game now, with all the QAnon bs, and the democracy is under threat bs, and the forever Russia Russia Russia crap.
Yay Murka. 
@Mick your stats are weak here, as I tried to explain, apparently to no avail.
If it is a mental bridge too far for you to realize that hinging your outrageous claim on a 1,000 person Rasmussen poll is problematic, why should anyone consider your talking points on much more complex issues in this thread? Knowing the renowned bias of Rasmussen over the years, it would not be too outrageous to expect they conducted landline only phone polling right after the Tucker segment finished. 
If you are taking as gospel the findings of a 1,000 person poll that says the majority of Americans think that the 2020 election was rigged ( ), what other obscure and/or inaccurate findings about this country you have not lived in do you cherry-pick/blow out of proportion in order to conveniently fit your preconceived biases? I see you dropped another Technofog reference again, yikes…you are down quite the rabbit-hole my guy.
Once again, when you quoted that dubious “55%” statistic, you were using it in a way that was suggesting that 55% of people thought Trump was cheated out of the election. If you were not doing so (which I can see you waffling now with semantics games and suggesting this), then your response was off-topic. Really feels disingenuous.
1 Like
What facts in that piece are you disputing?
Not opening up that can of worms right now, there is a much more interesting question to be answered: How can you actually stomach someone playing semantics to trick people into thinking that the majority of the American public believe Trump was cheated out of a 2020 win? If something as ridiculously inaccurate as this is being pushed as truth, do you really think more complex topics will be treated with noble, or at least neutral intention?
1 Like
That just sounds like you can’t dispute the facts of the piece and resorted to an ad hominem (probably one you just pulled out of thin air.) Not surprising, as the piece is entirely factual.
If you can’t handle being exposed to different opinions, maybe you should move on. Not entertaining this again, I’ve made myself far clearer on it than is in any way warranted.
It’s Rasmussen polling they have done several over the past couple of years, I think the lowest was 53% and the highest 58% on the issue of did cheating influence the outcome of the election.
Don’t want to believe them, then don’t believe them, if you have an issue take it up with them.
I think they have been pretty accurate over the years.
Honestly, melting down like you do because someone posts something you don’t like and then whining about the person to others because they haven’t adopted your conditioned allowed responses to everything and have posted wrong think. 1984 was supposed to be a work of fiction not an instruction manual for fascists’.