So many convictions, right? Those dastardly Democrats- even a special counsel under a Republican Attorney- General, the Dems hid it so deeply that Durham couldn’t find anything.
Is it all Democrats or just a few scumbags with clout?
Went up to Obama, he was in the loop from the beginning and knew Clintons had a dirty tricks campaign to link Trump to Russian collusion.
He signed off on an investigation we now wasn’t warranted, got FISA warrants that targeted innocent people like Gen Mike Flynn and then when Clinton lost encouraged the IC to blame Russia in an intelligence assessment report and went after the likes of Flynn, based on nothing hoping to take him out of the incoming administration and put in place an investitive team to hide what they did and hopefully oust a duly elected President if they could dig up something in the process.
It was as dirty as it comes and the media went along with all of it, but they all knew as did anyone paying attention from early releases in 2017.
The only ones who didn’t figure it out were the same ones who always tune in to hear what they want to be told and lack any critical thinking whatsoever.
2 Likes
AG Barr said the special counsels role was not to secure convictions but to lay out what happened. If there were alleged crimes found they could be prosecuted. Doing do in DC where judges and juries hated Trump did not help. A jury spokesperson said in the not guilty verdict said that even if the defendant lied to the FBI they would not convict. One judge threw out written communication verifying a lie because the defendant claimed he never "said " that to the FBI. So but claiming he didn’t say it the judge did not allow the written email into evidence.
Durham found a lot. It’s right out in the open. People said Cuomo wouldn’t go down, but I kept on posting. Give it time.
What could be worse?
Or right.
The end of democracy as the DNC sees it:
1 Like
Philly has fallen to the right.
Trust in all institutions is falling, and this report will make the FBI’s reputation fall still further. Undermining the rule of law and perverting the administration of justice used to be seen as obviously wrong, even when the weaponization was directed against a “bad guy.” That’s an essential part of how liberal democracy works. In subverting that, it may yet bring about its greatest fear: taking down this republic by its own actions.
Good talk with journalist Eli Lake, who wrote a piece I linked to above. Some highlights listed below
Clinton was given considerable latitude in 2016, including “defensive briefings” about allegations of possible corruption–double standard
Investigation against Trump was started on flimsiest of evidence with no corroboration developed
Only backed up by Steele dossier which was funded (and lied about) by Clinton campaign and which was disinformation.
All errors went in one direction–against Trump
Many potentially exculpatory lines of investigation not considered
Steele dossier was very important to investigation
Investigation kept going despite repeated dead ends
Democracies don’t start investigations/withdraw ordinary considerations based solely on expressed opinions
Pre-2016 media maintained standard of releasing true information despite its source
Russiagate dead-enders are latching onto random scraps of evidence and acting as if it was obviously true
Video of Cabe pushing idea Trump could be Russian asset as late as 2019, now says “Durham is wrong”, “report stands as an anomaly” and ribald discussion of this apparently intentional disinformation (note: Cabe declined to speak to Durham during investigation, FBI response to Durham report claims to take it seriously). Cabe is still a paid analyst at CNN who apparently are A-OK with platforming some forms of disinformation but not others
Problem of former security agents now working as news analysts on corporate networks
Steele was linked to oligarch Deripaska who has also been connected to Manafort (interesting, didn’t know that)
Discussion of Trump’s Russia “find the 30,000 emails” comments
Discussion of various Trump staff and possible alternate pathways for FBI to investigate
Trump’s reaction to Durham report
Comey’s announcement of Trump investigation to House Intelligence Committee
Recent FBI history, possible reforms and difficulties
Need for end to arrogant nanny-state censorship and gerontocracy
4 Likes
Need to watch the whole thing later
2 Likes
2 Likes
I just finished this one:
Edited to add:
Unlike Rep. Cohen’s and Rep. Gaetz’s remarks, and as far as I could tell, Rep. Hageman’s remarks didn’t seem to contain any indication of dissatisfaction with Special Counsel Durham’s work.
I think Reps. Cohen and Gaetz might be able to profit by perusing this:
And I think Special Counsel Durham can derive comfort from these two lines of Kipling:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you. . . .
1 Like
I did watch the whole thing, it was interesting if not really revealing. Some of the talk about Mifsud was interesting, I recall. I did fast forward past a lot of boring parts 
Some were not interested in engaging with the substance of the report.
1 Like
I’ve only done about 20 minutes of that “Dissecting the Durham Report” video. I’m gonna try to get back to it soon, but also pretty soon I’m gonna have to go get some kind of snacks, or maybe even an actual meal. So there’s some internal competition going on.
Oh, yeah, Mifsud, isn’t he that professor guy, the one that was so hard to find? That seems so long ago that my memory on that one is kind of foggy.
Edited to add this little bit from Wikipedia:
1 Like
Yeah the Dems were intent on implying that his trip with Barr to find the guy was an excuse for Barr to influence him I guess, while the Republican who brought it up was incredulous he couldn’t be found as if they have some kind of superlegal authority in foreign countries. Another thing that Gaetz alluded to if I recall right and another Republican (thankfully) asked directly is why Durham didn’t subpoena anyone. His answer was unsatisfying, basically that the objective conditions for it were never met for any involved person. Hard to believe it wasn’t a more conscious decision.
2 Likes
Well, I think he did subpoena people:
But it looks as if Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley were interested in specific people, as evidenced by this portion of a letter (citations omitted):
–from Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, portion of letter, May 23, 2023
Edited to add:
I just stumbled on an interesting Washington Examiner tidbit from 2020:
Edited to add again:
Anyway, Comey testfied, apparently without a subpoena, before the Senate Judiciary Committee back in September 2020 (I’m pretty sure Lindsey Graham arranged that):
–Former FBI Director James Comey Testimony on Russia Investigation | C-SPAN.org
I can remember Strzok testifying in 2018, but I forgot which chamber. This article says it was before a joint committee of the House of Representatives:
McCabe testified before the Sentate Judiciary Committee in 2020:
–Andrew McCabe defends Trump campaign Russia probe during partisan hearing - CBS News
This May 24 article repeats a lot of the contents of Sens. Johnson and Grassley’s letter to Special Counsel Durham, and concerns various individuals either not agreeing to be interviewed by Durham or agreeing with limitations, qualifications, or modifications–but it may add some new knowledge:
4 Likes
You’re right. It’s not clear to me who though. A quick look shows some organizations such as Perkins Coie and Brookings and other unidentified individuals. But a number of key higher-level figures were requested to come in and refused, but weren’t subpoenaed.
Apparently the word “subpoena” only appears 6 times in the entire report. Only two refer to subpoenas as part of the investigation, one of which you quoted above.
1 Like
Yeah, I guess Sens. Johnson and Grassley’s implication was that those people that the letter mentioned should have been subpoenaed but weren’t.
People have been known to resist subpoenas at times.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 I don’t know, maybe that factored into Special Counsel Durham’s thinking. Maybe.
Or maybe there’s some reason we’re not aware of.
2 Likes