• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Durham's Investigation Is Falling Apart

Sand Castle said:
There will never be evidence to support Obama's actions as being illegitimate. Infact, Barr signaled this.

But of course that's the game, forget Obama did what was in his powers, and just keep the rhetoric going
Click to expand...

Barr said that Obama (and Biden) are not under investigation.
He didn't say there would never be evidence that Obama's actions were "illegitimate"
After all, if we are to believe Rice and Yates, who basically said Comey went "rogue, this whole affair could be a result of a failure by the president to exercise proper control over federal law enforcement.
 
Sand Castle said:
Irony, Barr is on a campaign promoting all power to Trump and his Presidency and with Obama:

Hmmmmmm, Obama according to Barr should have no Presidential power and discretion.

That Barr, what a fickle and conflicted man
Click to expand...

Mainstream conservative orthodoxy has been edging itself for a couple of decades now by flirting with the idea that any democratic victory is inherently illegitimate. I.e. rule of law, law and order, are not applicable to their efforts, and any efforts against them.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Barr said that Obama (and Biden) are not under investigation.
He didn't say there would never be evidence that Obama's actions were "illegitimate"
After all, if we are to believe Rice and Yates, who basically said Comey went "rogue, this whole affair could be a result of a failure by the president to exercise proper control over federal law enforcement.
Click to expand...


IF Comey hadn’t declared Clinton under investigations 11 days prior to the 2016 election, she’s potus.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The concern would be that a Biden Admin would wish to bury an investigation that placed the Obama Admin in a bad light.
Click to expand...

They’ll be too busy investigating Barr and the Trump admin.

So file your response under “You bet your ass.”
 
W_Heisenberg said:
You need to read the Mueller report and the recent Senate report.

There is simply no evidence to support your assertion save for one thing: the Special Counsel could not find enough evidence to prove the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's it, and that's a very high bar, and to suggest the investigation was a hoax is a really, really stupid thing to say.
Click to expand...

The Senate report had the same issue-- they had no evidence to even offer to offer up a theory as to why Manafort sent the polling data. Manafort said he did it for the money and there are no facts indicating the opposite.
And that is the closest we get to a conspiracy.
Horowitz found that the FBI knew by the summer of 2016 that PapaD had no contact with any Russians; the DOJ and DNI folks of the Obama Admin saw no evidence of a conspiracy; we now know that documents were forged to try to justify an investigation of Page into his role in an alleged conspiracy.

At this point, it is fair to conclude that Mueller's inability to find sufficient evidence of a conspiracy is because there was NO conspiracy.
 
Aunt Antifa said:
IF Comey hadn’t declared Clinton under investigations 11 days prior to the 2016 election, she’s potus.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not.
In any event, Comey was fired because of it.
 
BlueTex said:
Are federal prosecutors frequently tasked with writing reports? Was a crime committed?
Click to expand...

There is an investigation after which a report will be generated describing that investigation.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Maybe. Maybe not.
In any event, Comey was fired because of it.
Click to expand...

Comey was fired for not dropping the Flynn case. Donald Trump did not fire James Comey because he accidentally helped Trump win the election.
 
Athanasius68 said:
There is an investigation after which a report will be generated describing that investigation.
Click to expand...

Is the investigation going to result in any indictments or just porn for Trump supporters?
 
Aunt Antifa said:
Comey was fired for not dropping the Flynn case. Donald Trump did not fire James Comey because he accidentally helped Trump win the election.
Click to expand...

He was fired because he would not publically state that he, Trump, was not under personal investigation for conspiring with Russia.
Seems like there was a good reason for Comey to not state this-- Trump WAS under personal investigation for conspiring with Russia.
 
BlueTex said:
Is the investigation going to result in any indictments or just porn for Trump supporters?
Click to expand...

We already have one indictment.

One would think that if a presidential candidate was going to be subject to the investigatory and surveillance authority of the USA, we would want everything lined up in a row for it.
When it relies upon forged information, or Russian disinformation, we ought find out why this was.
 
BlueTex said:
Is the investigation going to result in any indictments or just porn for Trump supporters?
Click to expand...

Good point. Prosecutors produce indictments or they produce nothing at all. A Prosecutor producing a report is sheer nonsense....garbage even post Indictment....its sheer Barr/Trump garbage if it rolls out that way.

To be clear, Mueller was a Special Counsel. Durham isn't. Durham is just a Prosecutor handed an assignment by the AG.
 
jnug said:
Good point. Prosecutors produce indictments or they produce nothing at all. A Prosecutor producing a report is sheer nonsense....garbage even post Indictment....its sheer Barr/Trump garbage if it rolls out that way.
Click to expand...


Durham is looking to find why the Obama Admin thought the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia.
If he is unable to find anything, then of course we have the problem of the Obama Admin having had abused their power.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Durham is looking to find why the Obama Admin thought the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia.
If he is unable to find anything, then of course we have the problem of the Obama Admin having had abused their power.
Click to expand...

Is Durham going to indict anyone for this abuse of power?
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
He was fired because he would not publically state that he, Trump, was not under personal investigation for conspiring with Russia.
Seems like there was a good reason for Comey to not state this-- Trump WAS under personal investigation for conspiring with Russia.
Click to expand...

That’s just one way to look at it. Look at it this way: everything we know about Donald Trump, which is more likely:

He fired James Comey because Trump was so angry about Comey saying words that helped Donald Trump win the 2016 election.

OR

He fired James Comey because Comey refused to play ball with a backroom deal Trump wanted done on “Trump Time?”

HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW
 
Sand Castle said:
One the worst debate rebuttals.

Let's hear your thoughts on Barr corrupting the Durham investigation
Click to expand...

He didn't. But don't let that stop you from engaging in speculation and conjecture.

Or, what the hell....just make it up and claim it as fact.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Durham is looking to find why the Obama Admin thought the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia.
If he is unable to find anything, then of course we have the problem of the Obama Admin having had abused their power.
Click to expand...

Either they can produce Indictments or they can't. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...
 
Athanasius68 said:
I don't know. Abuse of power isn't necessarily against the law.
Click to expand...

The actual Federal Statute is 25 CFR § 11.448 - Abuse of office.

People throw around Abuse of Power as a Constitutional Offense but there is no such wording in the Constitution. If a President he would be impeached whereas a bureaucrat would be Indicted and taken to trial against the above statute.

A President could be impeached for Abuse of Power under the broad term "other crimes and misdemeanors"

Again, Prosecutors speak through their Indictments. A report either pre or post Indictment would be Barr/Trump political horse crap.
 
Last edited:
Schism said:
Not one single person was convicted of colluding with Russia. Not a one.

Where are the Russian agents? Nowhere to be found it seems. Dem's drove that fake news investigation.
Click to expand...

Nope. But everyone that is convicted lied to cover for Trump. Imagine where we would be if Manafort and Stone had told the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom