The Durham Report and The Exposition of The Libbies

[Hodad]

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I agree that it accomplished nothing.

Honestly, when was the last time that a leftist ever changed their mind from the opinion that they were originally given by CNN and the Dems? 

Leftists aren't even mad about the fact that they supported rioting, arson, looting and some even supported the assassinations of police officers all in the name of M Brown, and we now know that CNN was aware that he was a violent criminal back when they were pimping him as a gentle giant. 

I'd be livid if someone stooged me like that. Leftists don't care. They'll make excuses to not be mad all day.

Is the truth about Russian collusion going to matter to them? Not one bit.

That's just a stream of lies.

1) Probable cause was a hoax: Hillary's dossier was completely bogus and it was presented to the FBI from her lawyer "as a concerned citizen" although he was paid to do it.  There is no question that this is true. 

2) No one has ever determined that the server was hacked and the most likely scenario is that it wasn't. There is no question that both of those statements are 100% true. 

Dem IT people had access to that server and statistically speaking, more of them supported Bernie than Hillary, and he's the one who was affected by the DNC's dirty dealings that were leaked, not Trump. There is no question that every single bit of this is true, pertinent, and doesn't leave out any important considerations. 

The CEO of Crowdstrike, the guy who actually got his hands on it, testified in court that he didn't have any concrete proof that it was actually hacked.

Julian Assange said that the emails came to him from a leak, and Assange has never been caught lying about his sources. That's more than you can say for the FBI and Dems, especially in this case. All of those guys committed crimes with regard to Russian collusion - in a real court they would only be allowed to testify in their own defence, not against anyone else. 

To go even further, Assange has the moral conviction to protect his sources to this very day when he could make his life a lot easier by spilling the beans on all of the people who leaked info to him. No one in the DNC has 0.1% of his character.

It was actually a total lie.

Your misguided belief that this was "lawlessness" is predicated on your false belief that the leaks were the result of Russian hacks. 

The only reason that you believe that there were "Russian hacks" is the fact that the aforementioned criminals (Hillary, Sussman, the FBI) said that the emails were probably hacked.

Who the hell is stupid enough to believe the mere opinion of a known criminal, about the very crime he's guilty of? And you know for a fact that the FBI and Dems were criminals in this instance. Do you think that Schiff didn't know that Page was a CIA asset? How does the opinion of those people equate to "a fact" from your POV? Are you retarded?  

One more thing.... Donald Trump never had an 'opinion' about Russian collusion: he knew from day 1 whether or not he did it. Do you understand that? The MSM constantly said that he was lying when he said that he never colluded, or that the FBI's investigation would determine whether or not he colluded, but they were 100% wrong... Trump had every right to say that he was innocent every single time he said it and there was never a single second of his life when he should have felt obliged to wait and see what the FBI had to say.

If I accuse you of molesting kids right now do you have to wait for the FBI/RCMP to clear your name before you say that you're innocent? Of course not. Would it be fair for me to call you a liar when you denied it? Of course not. But the standards for talking about the Russian collusion farce was upside down from day 1. The criminal FBI and Dems

"Third" lol. You're still 0-fer, dude. 

You'd have to explain specifically what you even mean by this, and then explain why Hillary was never warned about working with Russians to start a bogus investigation into a political opponent herself. 

That was a literal mountain of BS. I can't even believe how low your understanding of all this is after such a long time. 

Its weird that you have to ignore the most serious aspects of this case to try to make your point, right? Like FBI CRIMES, for example? 

What a stupid comment. 

It was the leftards who named it, not Trump. It was their fantasy, not his.

And FYI leftists would never call their own BS trial a "conspiracy" because their toadies are conditioned to believe that the word "conspiracy" always means that something's fake. 

The Republican-led US Senate Intelligence Committee thinks you're FOS. Page 170

" (U) Hack and Leak

( 1. (U) Introduction and Findings (U) Beginning in March 2016, officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, successfully hacked computer networks belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the email accounts of Clinton Campaign officials and employees, including Campaign Chairmap.John Podesta. Over the following months, these hackers carefully established persistent access in confidential areas of the victims' systems and stole massive amounts of politically sensitive data and personal communications. The data was subsequently leaked by GRU personas and WikiLeaks at strategic moments during the 2016 election, as part of a coordinated hack--and-leak operation intended to damage the Clinton Campaign, help the Trump Campaign (the · "Campaign"), and undermine the U.S. democratic process. 1110 /

(U) The Committee sought to understand the nature of the Russian hacking operation, including its origins and intent. The Committee further examined the relationship between the GRU's operation and WikiLeaks, including when, how, and why WikiLeaks was provided with the hacked DNC and Podesta documents, and what it sought to achieve. The Committee also investigated the relationship between WikiLeaks and the Campaign, including the Campaign's treatment of WikiLeaks and any attempts to contact or coordinate with it.1111

(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-and-leak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence reporting. "

 

 

[Deluge]

On 5/17/2023 at 7:50 PM, Hodad said:

This report is an absurd bit of theater. The FBI suspected that Trump's campaign was engaged with the Russians. The investigation revealed that suspicion to be correct, they were indeed engaged with the Russians at the highest levels of the campaign. But that was no big deal to some people.

But now those same people are crowing about this investigation that says maybe they didn't have enough reason to investigate the suspicions that proved to be correct.

Funny, what some people care about--and crow about--when they don't have any core values.

"Your honor, the defendant was mistreated. Sure they found bodies in his basement, but the real problem is that the police didn't have enough probable cause to check the basement!"

No it isn't. What's absurd is your TDS. 

The FBI suspected? How about the FBI concluded? How in the f*ck does anyone state that Trump engaged with the Russians if the FBI never verified it? 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Deluge

[Rebound]

27 minutes ago, Deluge said:

There needs to be some kind of severe penalty for weaponizing the legal system - these a$$holes are unhinged. 

But investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden are ok, right? 
 

If the government prosecutes a Republican, it’s “weaponization,” but if it’s a Democrat, it’s ok, right? 

[Rebound]

13 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No it isn't. What's absurd is your TDS. 

The FBI suspected? How about the FBI concluded? How in the f*ck does anyone state that Trump engaged with the Russians if the FBI never verified it? 

The legal system has standards. You probably are not aware.

Reasonable Suspicion: Needed to investigate

Probable Cause: Needed to get a warrant, arrest and charge

Preponderance of Evidence: Guilt in a civil proceeding

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Guilt in a criminal proceeding 

They do not open investigations based on “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” That’s not how it works. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Rebound

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

But investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden are ok, right? 
 

If the government prosecutes a Republican, it’s “weaponization,” but if it’s a Democrat, it’s ok, right? 

Of course it was ok to investigate. It's not considered "weaponizing the system" when actual crimes are known to have occurred, or when there's probable grounds.

Russian collusion was built on a rumour about an unlikely server hack which has never been proven, some bogus intel from Hillary, some FBI crimes, and not much else. 

Hunter made tens of millions of dollars in the countries where Joe was most heavily involved when the was VP, and Joe bizarrely and angrily denied any knowledge of Hunter's dealings there. He knew "nothing". Then we found out that he for sure knew Devon Archer and he admitted that he knew "something", which made his emphatic statements from earlier into complete lies. Why did he lie? How did Hunter get into business with banks controlled by the communist gov't of China? 

None of that is speculation, it's all verified. 

If Mike Pence's son made $10M and got a big diamond in some deals with Chinese banks, and then Mike angrily denied even knowing that his son was working with those guys, and with Burisma making $30K+/mo would you call BS? Of course you would.

Gimme a break. You're such a phoney.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The legal system has standards. You probably are not aware.

Reasonable Suspicion: Needed to investigate

Probable Cause: Needed to get a warrant, arrest and charge

Preponderance of Evidence: Guilt in a civil proceeding

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Guilt in a criminal proceeding 

They do not open investigations based on “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” That’s not how it works. 

You forgot: 

"Could Probably Tell Enough Lies and Falsify Enough Evidence to Open a Highly Publicized Show Trial Against a Duly Elected President."

It's the gold standard now. All other investigations are put on the back burner. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Hodad]

26 minutes ago, Deluge said:

No it isn't. What's absurd is your TDS. 

The FBI suspected? How about the FBI concluded? How in the f*ck does anyone state that Trump engaged with the Russians if the FBI never verified it? 

It's not quite clear what you're trying to say here, but it's been verified in multiple investigations that the Trump campaign was deeply engaged with Russia at multiple intersections.

And as for suspicion, the General Inspector concluded that there was sufficient cause to open a full investigation. The Durham report concluded that there was cause to open a preliminary investigation, though not necessarily a full investigation. <-- That disagreement is pretty trivial. The preliminary would have led to a full investigation anyway. So the core criticism is the at the FBI cut corners when trying to investigate something as critical as a US Presidential candidate potentially being compromised by Russian intelligence. Can't imagine why they'd rush??

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

So what? You STILL have NO EVIDENCE Garland influenced what was written; just SPECULATION on YOUR part.

AND you have no evidence of Garland being a FRAUD, like there is of YOU HERE.

Show us the MARKUPS!

It doesn't mean he's implicated, doofus. It means he allowed its release already knowing how damning it is.

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

So the core criticism is the at the FBI cut corners when trying to investigate something as critical as a US Presidential candidate potentially being compromised by Russian intelligence. 

No one is saying that the FBI "cut corners".

The claim, which is verified, is that the FBI knowingly and willfully committed actual crimes.

[Hodad]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

No one is saying that the FBI "cut corners".

The claim, which is verified, is that the FBI knowingly and willfully committed actual crimes.

Oh, noes. Your ignore list is broken again! 

Again, to the point, even Durham thinks the investigation was justified. And try as he might, the best he could manage was some finger wagging about process. And this is a "bombshell" for you folks. lol

[West]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

There needs to be some kind of severe penalty for weaponizing the legal system - these a$$holes are unhinged. 

No justice when communists are running the legal system

[WestCanMan]

21 hours ago, Rebound said:

The Durham report found no wrongdoing. Nobody was convicted of any crimes. He didn’t indict a single person. He didn’t get a single person fired. He didn’t even recommend a personnel letter for a single person. 
 

FYI Kevin Clinesmith was already convicted of lying to a FISA court judge. 

To date he's the only person who was ever charged with a crime that is directly involved with Russian collusion. Charges for non-collusion-related charges which were just used to try to illicit false testimony against Trump don't really count as being related to collusion.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Again, to the point, even Durham thinks the investigation was justified. And try as he might, the best he could manage was some finger wagging about process. And this is a "bombshell" for you folks. lol

A preliminary investigation.

He never said that committing crimes to get warrants to spy was justified. Nr did he say that a public show trial was warranted. Nor did he say that bringing CNN to a pre-dawn raid with the FBI and a bunch of automatic weapons was justified. In fact, almost everything that the FBI did was illegal, immoral and despicable.

If they committed this many crimes against a black kid who just finished violently robbing a store you guys would freak, but they did it to the best POTUS in the last 30 years while he was completely innocent ?

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

they did it to the best POTUS in the last 30 years while he was completely innocent ?

You live in an entirely different (and fictional) universe. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You live in an entirely different (and fictional) universe. 

They actually did it to the best POTUS in the last 30 and they turned out to be wrong. 

Regardless of your political stripe, you gotta admit that having a show trial and then being completely wrong is a huge embarrassment for the US.

I had no idea that they were so corrupt, it's an actual disgrace. 

[WestCanMan]

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html

Quote

Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe

IE, the FBI shouldn't have lied continuously and committed crimes. 

Makes sense, right? 

[Hodad]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

They actually did it to the best POTUS in the last 30 and they turned out to be wrong. 

Regardless of your political stripe, you gotta admit that having a show trial and then being completely wrong is a huge embarrassment for the US.

I had no idea that they were so corrupt, it's an actual disgrace. 

A. They were right.

B. Trump, the the only twice-impeached president and the only president to attempt a coup to remain in power, is an historically awful president, and is already being recorded as such. That will be his legacy.

The only positive thing about his single term in office was the economy, which managed for some while not to fark up--until he did.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

There needs to be some kind of severe penalty for weaponizing the legal system - these a$$holes are unhinged. 

I know! How dare they prosecute Republicans! We shouldn’t even be putting white people in prison! Just blacks and Hispanics. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

You are making up a motivation and explanation--that are absurdly implausible--to excuse egregious behavior. It's completely disingenuous. Or maybe you just have very strange relationships with your buddies?  How many layers of encryption do you use when you are "bragging to a buddy"? Do you often delegate someone to boast to your buddy on your behalf through secret communications channels? Do you and your buddy use coded language when you are bragging? Do you buy burner phones to brag to your buddy? Does your buddy think your bragging is valuable enough to pass it to national intelligence agencies? If authorities asked you if you had bragged to your buddy, would you perjure yourself to deny having bragged at risk of prison time? (I mean, it's just casual bragging, right?) Come on.

Manafort and Kilimnik worked together to coordinate a Russian electoral interference in Ukraine to get Putin's puppet Yanukovych elected. They had literally run this kind of operation together before.Neither of them had any question about what that sort of data could and would be used for. 

Nobody can show you explicit records of what  Russian intelligence services did with the intelligence from Manafort. And frankly that's an unreasonable request. 

But we know that Manafort gave it to Kilimnik and Kilimnik gave it to intelligence. We do know it was data and strategy for how Trump could win with specific voting demos in specific swing states. And we do know that the Russians were trying to help Trump win. And we do know that the Russian ads did increase severalfold in those key states after Manafort shared the information. 

Could Russia have made their targeting and strategy decisions independently, in other ways? Sure. But they didn't need to, because Manafort gift-wrapped it for them.  

 

This is the weirdest thing to dig in about, and pure nonsense. If I have Twix bar and give one of the sticks to my friend then I shared my Twix with them. Whether or not they give me something in return, I have shared. <-- sharing is literally kindergarten curriculum. Or, alternatively, let me share a story about XYZ...  <-- look I shared information, whether anyone else returns the favor or not.

But again, in this case, Russian intelligence was certainly returning the favor. There's zero debate that they were trying to get Trump elected. 

 

Seriously. Starting at page 27 there's like a hundred pages of Manafort's shady shit. And Trump wasn't angry about such a betrayal. He pardoned him for it, and for literal felony offenses. Because Manafort didn't talk.

 

Blah blah blah i hate trump blah blah blah.

my conclusions are what the fbi arrived at, what the commission arrived at and what every sane person arrived at.

There's no collusion, no conspiracy and nothing wrong done by trump. And the FBI ran a highly inappropriate and unprofessional and at times illegal investigation to DESPERATELY hang something on him and couldn't

Here's a clue kid - if you can't tell what the russians used the data for - then they probably didn't use it for anything. It's as simple as that. If they did there'd be evidence, somethnig would have happened in concert with something else or they'd have done soemthing different than they'd been doing or something - but nope  nothing.

Your entire argument is that the information provided MUST have been used illegally or improperly or even at all. And there's no evidence of it, and in fact evidence that they didn't.

You just can't give up 4 years of desperately believing that he was guilty of 'collusion' because cnn told you it was true and you wanted to believe it so bad you could taste it. 

Find something else to hate him for, god knows there's options. But stop lying about this. You're just making trump look sane.

 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, West said:

No justice when communists are running the legal system

Trump shouldn’t have appointed communists. 

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Blah blah blah i hate trump blah blah blah.

my conclusions are what the fbi arrived at, what the commission arrived at and what every sane person arrived at.

There's no collusion, no conspiracy and nothing wrong done by trump. And the FBI ran a highly inappropriate and unprofessional and at times illegal investigation to DESPERATELY hang something on him and couldn't

Here's a clue kid - if you can't tell what the russians used the data for - then they probably didn't use it for anything. It's as simple as that. If they did there'd be evidence, somethnig would have happened in concert with something else or they'd have done soemthing different than they'd been doing or something - but nope  nothing.

Your entire argument is that the information provided MUST have been used illegally or improperly or even at all. And there's no evidence of it, and in fact evidence that they didn't.

You just can't give up 4 years of desperately believing that he was guilty of 'collusion' because cnn told you it was true and you wanted to believe it so bad you could taste it. 

Find something else to hate him for, god knows there's options. But stop lying about this. You're just making trump look sane.

 

The FBI’s conclusion in the Mueller report was that the Justice Department should not prosecute any sitting President, because the Constitution affords other methods, i.e., impeachment.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I know! How dare they prosecute Republicans!

This part was sooooooo close. If you just would have put two different letters in there it would have made you look 80 IQ points higher:

"How dare they persecute Republicans!"

See?

Quote

We shouldn’t even be putting white people in prison! Just blacks and Hispanics. 

No mere swapping of a couple letters could shake the stupid outta that quote though, so those fluked-off IQ points woulda just gone right down the drain anyways. Plus it makes you a racially divisive loser.

Can't say I didn't try to help ya. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Trump shouldn’t have appointed communists. 

The FBI’s conclusion in the Mueller report was that the Justice Department should not prosecute any sitting President, because the Constitution affords other methods, i.e., impeachment.  

well not really,

And first off it was clear that there was no evidence conspiracy or 'russian collusion' that even could be charged.  So lets get that out of the way - the report left no doubt that the 'russian collusion' narrative which ran for almost 4 years was a complete hoax. Didn't happen.

But - he claimed that trump during the investigation behaved in a way that could be considered obstruction possibly and may be chargeable, but that he  wasn't sure how that worked with a sitting president and that it would have to be a decision for the justice department.

Who reviewed the info and said "Yeah - no. It's not obstruction.

Mueller also noted that the 'obstruction' in no way hindered his investigation.

There's so many legitimate critisizms of trump - it is simply pathetic to watch people hold on to THIS OBVIOUS LIE. 

There was no 'russian collusion'.  Trump had people who had ties to russia - so did the dems.  There is zero evidence that trump at any time tried to work with the russians to influence the election inappropriately.  And - there's zero evidence of it from their efforts - their efforts didn't particularly support anything trump did.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Blah blah blah i hate trump blah blah blah.

my conclusions are what the fbi arrived at, what the commission arrived at and what every sane person arrived at.

There's no collusion, no conspiracy and nothing wrong done by trump. And the FBI ran a highly inappropriate and unprofessional and at times illegal investigation to DESPERATELY hang something on him and couldn't

Here's a clue kid - if you can't tell what the russians used the data for - then they probably didn't use it for anything. It's as simple as that. If they did there'd be evidence, somethnig would have happened in concert with something else or they'd have done soemthing different than they'd been doing or something - but nope  nothing.

Your entire argument is that the information provided MUST have been used illegally or improperly or even at all. And there's no evidence of it, and in fact evidence that they didn't.

You just can't give up 4 years of desperately believing that he was guilty of 'collusion' because cnn told you it was true and you wanted to believe it so bad you could taste it. 

Find something else to hate him for, god knows there's options. But stop lying about this. You're just making trump look sane.

 

Jeebus, "kid," did you sleep through that election cycle? *Many* things happened in concert. As had been documented and shared here many times. You just don't care. It's yet another deflection.

The volume and specificity of the internet influence campaign jumped after Mandatory started sharing Intel. Roger Stone was in regular contact with WikiLeaks about the Russian hack and leak- and the Trump campaign even teased early releases--all while Assange was trying to get Putin to give him asylum. And Trump offered to pardon Assange (as he did Manafort and Stone) if Assange would lie about the fact that the Russian hack and leak was the source.

And the FBI did not conclude what you claim. There's a mountain of evidence. But there are certain challenges to closing a case when half of the action is in Russia and presidential pardons are being brokered for silence. 

If you're even a tiny bit honest with yourself and imagine that even a fraction of this shit happened in a democratic campaign you'd be appalled. I mean, FFS, Hillary's contracted law firm hired a standard research agency, who hired a retired British spy, who interviewed sources in Russia about things that allegedly happened in/with Russia, and the wingnuts here are concocting fantasies about collusion.

 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, "kid," did you sleep through that election cycle? *Many* things happened in concert. As had been documented and shared here many times. You just don't care. It's yet another deflection.

 

 

Nothing happened in concert. And given your constant lying so far i'm not inclined to believe your account of it   

Again - NOBODY got charged over trump "colluding" with the Russians to influence the election INCLUDING manafort. The fbi found NO evidence of it. The commission didn't.  NOBODY did.

You try to twist unrelated stuff INTO that but there just isn't anything there. 3 years of dozens of investigators and commissions and god knows what and ZERO charges relating to any collusion over the election.

It's a lie. YOU are a lie. You should be DEEPLY ashamed of yourself for being so gullible. There is much you can say about trump but YOU CANNOT SAY HE COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.  That is a LIE.

[West]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, "kid," did you sleep through that election cycle? *Many* things happened in concert. As had been documented and shared here many times. You just don't care. It's yet another deflection.

The volume and specificity of the internet influence campaign jumped after Mandatory started sharing Intel. Roger Stone was in regular contact with WikiLeaks about the Russian hack and leak- and the Trump campaign even teased early releases--all while Assange was trying to get Putin to give him asylum. And Trump offered to pardon Assange (as he did Manafort and Stone) if Assange would lie about the fact that the Russian hack and leak was the source.

And the FBI did not conclude what you claim. There's a mountain of evidence. But there are certain challenges to closing a case when half of the action is in Russia and presidential pardons are being brokered for silence. 

If you're even a tiny bit honest with yourself and imagine that even a fraction of this shit happened in a democratic campaign you'd be appalled. I mean, FFS, Hillary's contracted law firm hired a standard research agency, who hired a retired British spy, who interviewed sources in Russia about things that allegedly happened in/with Russia, and the wingnuts here are concocting fantasies about collusion.

 

Even if true, why are you more concerned with Roger Stone than the sketchy nonsense the DNC was doing?