ADVERTISEMENT

Now that Special Counsel John Durham has failed to prove his case in court...

  • Like
Reactions: INXS83 and NCHawk5
Still doesn't change the facts laid out in the intelligence report. It's kind of funny some of you are complaining about the jury in the Durham case, but believe the impeachment cases had an unbiased "jury."
Oh, it doesn’t? Then why does the jury in this case affect all of the smoke with Durham? You trying to call out hypocrisy while being a hypocrite is GOLDEN 👏
 
  • Like
Reactions: biggreydogs
Well, you're correct in that 1/6 was an organized conspiracy to overturn the election by a group of seditionist, of which literally hundreds have been convicted in a court of law and served time.
JFC. This is fantastic. Cries about conspiracy theories. Then outlines one he believes. Classic.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sob5 and Kelsers
Oh, it doesn’t? Then why does the jury in this case affect all of the smoke with Durham? You trying to call out hypocrisy while being a hypocrite is GOLDEN 👏
Didn't even look at the report did you?
 
So like we're done with Schiff and Nadler who never even presented a case on collusion with all their "evidence"? I'm sure you were on the edge of your ledge waiting for all those hammers to drop....that didn't. At least there was a case to be made
Can you tell us when the Senate trial took place? I must have missed it. I'd like to go look at the videos. TIA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkNester
Now do Trump Impeachment

Unindicted co-conspirator in two campaign finance felonies; 10 counts of obstruction of justice. All not prosecuted - not because they didn’t have the facts to do so - Mueller said he did - but because the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President.

Impeached, twice; one with bi-partisan support.

34 people indicted, 3 companies indicted, multiple guilty verdicts in several jurisdictions, and guilty pleas, including Trump’s campaign chair, deputy campaign chair, campaign foreign policy advisor, personal lawyer, National Security Advisor, and campaign advisor ….
 
Unindicted co-conspirator in two campaign finance felonies; 10 counts of obstruction of justice. All not prosecuted - not because they didn’t have the facts to do so - Mueller said he did - but because the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President.

Impeached, twice; one with bi-partisan support.

34 people indicted, 3 companies indicted, multiple guilty verdicts in several jurisdictions, and guilty pleas, including Trump’s campaign chair, deputy campaign chair, campaign foreign policy advisor, personal lawyer, National Security Advisor, and campaign advisor ….
- Cooper being professional friends with Sussmann

- Cooper’s wife represented former FBI lawyer Lisa Page

- Cooper and his wife were married by Merrick Garland (!!!)

- Cooper appointed by Obama
 
nymag.com


John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.​



Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.​


Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer. Photo: United States Attorney’s Office, District of Connecticut

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

However focused he may be, Durham is not winning prosecutions. His investigation has produced one extremely small fish – a guilty plea by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith* for a likely immaterial error. And now he is losing prosecutions. Durham abused his authority by trying to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton, whom Durham tried to convict on a single perjury charge. And the case turns out to have been so pathetically threadbare that it resulted in a rapid acquittal.

Sussmann went to the FBI in 2016 with evidence compiled by computer researchers that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia through a server run by the Russian bank Alfabank. The scientists were not sure if the server was a communications link between Trump and Russia and wanted the FBI to investigate. The link was never proven, and the FBI quickly decided not to pursue the thread, though Dexter Filkins has argued in detail that the case remains uncertain.

The charge against Sussmann alleged that he misled the FBI by saying he was not working on behalf of a client when in fact he was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Not only is a single charge of lying to the FBI weak tea for a prosecution, it was obvious all along that the evidence for even this small charge was tenuous. The prosecution hung its case on the testimony of one FBI official, James Baker, based entirely on his recollection of a conversation. Baker, however, was foggy on many of the specifics of his interactions with Sussmann, and even testified to Congress that he couldn’t remember if he knew who Sussmann was working for.

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

The fact Durham even had to bring this case was a testament to the failure of his probe. He had set out to uncover the FBI’s crimes against Mr. Trump. He was reduced to trying, and failing, to prosecute somebody for lying to the FBI.

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

The second is that the FBI never leaked its investigation until after Trump was elected. The only reporting on the whole matter before the election was in a New York Times report that the FBI “saw no clear link to Russia.” Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton investigation had sprung leaks all over the place. So the Trump-Barr-Durham theory somehow posits that the FBI set up a phony investigation in order to leak it and then forgot to leak, instead doing the opposite by telling the Times that the Bureau did not suspect the Trump campaign.

Indeed, the Sussmann trial revealed that the Clinton campaign did not want the FBI to open a probe into the Alfabank server because it feared an investigation would make it less likely that the media would write about the story at all. So to the extent Durham deepened the public understanding of Trump’s conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, he inadvertently undermined it. I argued in 2020 that Joe Biden’s Justice Department was correct to let Durham continue his investigation because it would expose the hollowness of Trump’s allegations. And it has.

The final, largest hole in the conspiracy theory is that there were in fact serious grounds for suspicion. By 2016 it was already apparent that Trump had hired as his campaign manager a guy who owed money to a Russian oligarch and who had previously managed the foreign campaign of a Russian puppet, had publicly asked Russia to hack his opponent’s emails, had exploited the results of that hack, among other things. The investigation turned up many more details, including a secret meeting where Trump’s campaign manager passed polling data on to a Russian agent, a secret business deal that promised to give Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at no risk (and which he was exposing himself to Russian blackmail by denying in public), and so on.

Why would Sussmann go to the FBI? No doubt he wanted Clinton to win. Durham presupposes this was his only motive. But Sussmann was also privy to an allegation whose technical details he wasn’t qualified to judge, but which had potentially alarming implications. The reason Sussmann was afraid Trump posed a security threat to the United States is that Trump posed a security threat to the United States.

*The original version of this story neglected to note Clinesmith’s guilty plea, and erroneously stated that Durham had not won any prosecutions.
John Durham Accidentally Debunked Trump’s Russiagate Theory
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
I also just heard a report from some of the jurors.

Basically they’re pissed that they spent weeks on such a weak case. Called it a waste of their time and said the government completely failed at making any case at all. Ouch.
 
I also just heard a report from some of the jurors.

Basically they’re pissed that they spent weeks on such a weak case. Called it a waste of their time and said the government completely failed at making any case at all. Ouch.
Just heard Kegerator is ready at Bill’s house for the jurors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
Not a hoax.

A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election.

It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.

The report portrayed a Trump campaign that was stocked with businessmen with no government experience, advisers working at the fringes of the foreign policy establishment and other friends and associates Mr. Trump had accumulated over the years. Campaign figures, the report said, “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.”

Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was “no collusion.”

But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.”

The Senate report was the first time the government has identified Mr. Kilimnik as an intelligence officer — Mr. Mueller’s report had labeled him as someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Most of the details about his intelligence background were blacked out in the Senate report.

Mr. Manafort’s willingness to share information with Mr. Kilimnik and others affiliated with the Russian intelligence services “represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the report said.


Read the rest here:

But there was no collusion...???????????

I guess Trump's DOJ said it did not reach a level of criminality???????:rolleyes:
 
Not surprised at all. When they didn’t allow his text to the FBI to be admitted to court it was all hit over.

The only positive that came out of this is that it is out in the open how the Russian collusion hoax started

The world you live it is small.
 
How is this a conspiracy? Also the swamp always protects the creatures. Includes Dems and repubs
You can see where they're going, nowhere in this thread does this guy actually try to make a case that Sussman was guilty, he's just pissed that it wasn't a jury of Trump brown shirts that would act as a rubber stamp for Durham.

They're fascists, when it comes to free and fair elections or the rule of law.
 
Durham didn't have a case, and any legal eagle not directly connected to the Trump MAGA party agreed. You guys have done your best to undermine the legitimacy of elections, now you're coming for trial by jury and the rule of law.
WTF are you talking about? The dipshit said Trump was acquitted and I responded with “ by a partisan vote” meaning republicans in the senate.

And somehow, you take that to mean I’m part of the group that has undermined the legitimacy of elections?

Are you an idiot?
 
WTF are you talking about? The dipshit said Trump was acquitted and I responded with “ by a partisan vote” meaning republicans in the senate.

And somehow, you take that to mean I’m part of the group that has undermined the legitimacy of elections?

Are you an idiot?
Sorry, misunderstood dude! Like the anger though!
 
kangaroo court
I predicted these type of post-verdict responses a couple months ago. Just about any excuse one can conjure up as a means to avoid reality..... attack the jury, attack the judge, etc.. Its very Trumpian. BTW, just today Trump claimed that Kemp's 50 point victory over Perdue was fraudulent. This shit has become standard operating procedure now.
 
ADVERTISEMENT