Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Cement said:

Since the mainstream media reported every time robert Mueller took a shit for 2 years, I certainly expect tonight's news to lead with this - more evidence that it was all a hoax and all fake news.

It was always a hoax and it was always fake news.

 

Did you read the article you posted?

Quote

What was he looking at?

Mr Rosenstein's order allowed Mr Mueller to look into:

  • The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the election
  • Any links or co-ordination between Russia and Trump campaign-linked individuals
  • Any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

His investigation ventured into work done by former Trump advisers and Russian nationals. Thirty-four people have been charged with wrongdoing.

What did he find?

Mr Mueller's 448-page report said it had not established that the Trump campaign criminally conspired with Russia to influence the election.

However, it did detail 10 instances where Mr Trump had possibly attempted to impede the investigation and stated the report did not exonerate Mr Trump.

Mr Mueller reiterated that in a rare statement following the end of the inquiry and said legal guidelines prevent the indictment of a sitting president. He said if his team had had confidence that Mr Trump "clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39961732

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Cement said:

Since the mainstream media reported every time robert Mueller took a shit for 2 years, I certainly expect tonight's news to lead with this - more evidence that it was all a hoax and all fake news.

It was always a hoax and it was always fake news.

 

Be honest: does somebody else help you get dressed in the morning?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • 1 month later...
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Who could've predicted this?

 

 

I think it was actually a pretty close case.

The smoking gun seemed to be billing the time for the meeting to the Clinton Campaign, but most lawdogs know that you need to bill every goddamn thing you can to someone (Surly posting time, of course), which doesn't necessarily mean that you are representing the client in that activity.

Or, to more delicately thread the ethics needle:  Sussman was not representing the Clinton Campaign when he met with Jim Baker.  But since it could inure to the benefit of the Clinton Campaign, bill the fuck out of it.

Posted
I can't wait for the "Hillary bribed/threatened the jury!" shit to start.

Well, they’ve been accusing her of literal murder for decades, so that will seem quaint!
Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I can't wait for the "Hillary bribed/threatened the jury!" shit to start.

already started on Texags..

DC juries won't convict a Dem

The FBI is cozy with the Dems

 

Posted
40 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

This makes their heads explode because they cannot fathom doing something above board. They are liars, cheats, and just generally small minded people. I’m including R politicians and voters. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

And it was classified as top secret. Uh huh. 

There's going to be a ticking time bomb of shit when the classifications are cleared through FIOA like this was 

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

"Not my purview" he mutters, taking a sip of his whiskey and gently laying on the bench. "Not mine" as he gazes off from the back of his cabin, the reflection of the nearby mountains laying vividly on the lake. He convinced himself over the years, but this June 28th was different. 

Ketchup all over the walls.

587 Solitude Man Sad Alone On The Lake Stock Photos, Pictures &  Royalty-Free Images - iStock

  • Haha 2
  • 1 month later...
Posted
3 minutes ago, PsychMike said:

This seems like it could be interesting. Anyone following this case?

 

 

I mean, he said what he said.  We know how he undercut the Mueller report.

What might be interesting is things in the memo that say stuff like "this is a dangerous conclusion and we need to minimize it."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Yeah, Barr, Trump, Manafort, Stone, Flynn, Bannon, and to a lesser extent Sessions/Rosenstein successfully obstructed justice into a national security investigation.  Everyone got away with everything. 

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Posted
3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm shocked that Anastasis didn't come here to provide that update.

He's probably in hiding from Hillary's hit squad, since this just clearly proves how she can get to anyone.

Posted
On 2/15/2022 at 1:57 PM, Anastasis said:

I actually don't think that the Durham stuff really goes anywhere meaningful. 

Here's an update from Anastasis back in February. 

Posted
33 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He's probably in hiding from Hillary's hit squad, since this just clearly proves how she can get to anyone.

Because this is an opportunity to get this paranoid thought off my chest, terribly mean ‘joke’ spoilered, with apologies to Ana in advance. 

Spoiler

Too busy collating hacked Texas’ schoolgirl menstrual cycles with risk/reward analysis of rape based fatherhood.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

Well, so much for Trump’s prediction that Durham would uncover the crime of the century. You had to know this was going nowhere when Durham’s own witnesses testified to the truthfulness of the outed Russian informant. It’s a outrage that Miss Lindsay and Bill Barr outed such a valuable asset.

Posted

The very idea that there's any merit to the dotard NOT being linked in multiple ways to Putin is fucking outrageous and should not be brought up as a serious conversation.  This has all been proven.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
11 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

The self referral in the third person is chef’s kiss. 

Did you learn anything that you found interesting during the trial regarding the handling of the steele dossier and the sources by the fbi?

  • 3 months later...
Posted

chefs-kiss-french-chef.gif

On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

But in October 2019, a garbled echo became public. The Times reported that Mr. Durham’s administrative review of the Russia inquiry had evolved to include a criminal investigation, while saying it was not clear what the suspected crime was. Citing their own sources, many other news outlets confirmed the development.

The news reports, however, were all framed around the erroneous assumption that the criminal investigation must mean Mr. Durham had found evidence of potential crimes by officials involved in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Barr, who weighed in publicly about the Durham inquiry at regular intervals in ways that advanced a pro-Trump narrative, chose in this instance not to clarify what was really happening.

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, bolverk said:

chefs-kiss-french-chef.gif

On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

But in October 2019, a garbled echo became public. The Times reported that Mr. Durham’s administrative review of the Russia inquiry had evolved to include a criminal investigation, while saying it was not clear what the suspected crime was. Citing their own sources, many other news outlets confirmed the development.

The news reports, however, were all framed around the erroneous assumption that the criminal investigation must mean Mr. Durham had found evidence of potential crimes by officials involved in the Russia inquiry. Mr. Barr, who weighed in publicly about the Durham inquiry at regular intervals in ways that advanced a pro-Trump narrative, chose in this instance not to clarify what was really happening.

Just one more reason why Barr should hang.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Live look in at Anastasis.

Unlike Carter Page, I have not yet had the opportunity to drool on myself on national TV in an interview with Chris Hayes while a bunch of posters here conjectured that he was the lynchpin of an international conspiracy to overthrow democracy.

As I said back in my Feb assessment, I didn't really think that Durham was going anywhere meaningful.  But if stenographers such as Charlie Savage are running hit pieces in the NYT, his FBI/IC sources are either feeling pretty fucking frosty or trying to narrative set before his findings are published.  Either way, break out the popcorn. 

Edited by Anastasis
win/in. we are not talking about Texas football.
Posted

Ah, of course. Durham is about to blow the whole thing wide open. Any minute now. Unless of course he doesn’t, in which case you’ve covered your bases and can pretend you haven’t had your head buried all the way up your ass on this stuff for half a decade now out of sheer contrarianism.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah, of course. Durham is about to blow the whole thing wide open. Any minute now. Unless of course he doesn’t, in which case you’ve covered your bases and can pretend you haven’t had your head buried all the way up your ass on this stuff for half a decade now out of sheer contrarianism.

I never hinged any of my arguments or positions on Durham, mostly primary source material (testimony and FOIA releases). Others here tried to dunk based on articles by Natasha Bertrand and Charlie Savage and Bump.  We know how that shit worked out.  Some of them ghosted themselves ( @suddenly shaggy), others do their best to redirect or build strawmen.  

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
On 1/26/2023 at 10:59 PM, wildcat09 said:

pretend you haven’t had your head buried all the way up your ass on this stuff for half a decade now out of sheer contrarianism.

It's an ethos.



×
×
  • Create New...