• 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!

Hillary Clinton APPROVED sharing debunked 'covert' communications between Trump and Kremlin-backed bank with press - even though she wasn't 'totally c

Okay, then cite an official statement by the DOJ concerning the investigation of the Trump Campaign before the election.
You are counting on that specific evidentiary bar to define secret. But that specificity doesn't define secret does it? Since it was in the NYT as well as reported by other outlets prior to the election, saying it was secret is a lot of partisan bullshit, isn't it?
 
You are counting on that specific evidentiary bar to define secret. But that specificity doesn't define secret does it? Since it was in the NYT as well as reported by other outlets prior to the election, saying it was secret is a lot of partisan bullshit, isn't it?

So cite the DOJ official in that article.
 
Do cops follow manufactured evidence they knew was fake? Do cops falsify documents to bolster the case?

Because that happened.

Try to keep up....



 
May 20, 2022
"...In the first words of her opening argument in the Michael Sussmann case, Durham prosecutor Brittain Shaw argued that this case is all about Sussmann’s privilege, his purported ability to exploit high level ties at DOJ to seed what she claims would be a smear campaign against the guy who was, in fact, hiding secret communications with the Kremlin and soliciting hacks of his opponent..."

August 8, 2020
"..

The report also doesn’t address (as it does in the WikiLeaks section) Trump’s demonstrable lies about Trump Tower, even though those lies are even more clear cut than his lies on WikiLeaks. After Trump claimed to have no recollection of any of this, he went out to the press and said stuff that made it clear he had very clear recollections about the real estate deals he was negotiating while running for President.

In addition to the three well known deals, the SSCI Report describes a fourth, one pitched by Boris Epshteyn to Eric Trump..."


Sigh... the one silver lining of Putin launching aggressive war against Ukraine is that it caused the tide to go out, revealing who
is "swimming naked" as far as enabling Putin and his oligarchs, aside from the obvious Trump and his former campaign manager, Manafort.





Please post what proof, with any actual consistency, that is not hearsay or contradicted by Baker, himself since September, 2016, of what "the untruth" was that Sussman is alleged to have told Baker, and when and how it was material in influencing the FBI to unjustifiably devote investigative attention and resources.

If I were you, especially in an election year in which congress just authorized $40 billion to assist Ukraine AGAINST sanctioned war criminal
Putin and his sanctioned oligarchs, I'd be more concerned that my posted beliefs, seem remarkably consistent with what Putin would pay to distribute and about CPAC cozying up to Putin's favorite authoritarian neighbor. And Tucker ....?

Link to cached page of the article below.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....-story+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera

The Contested Afterlife of the Trump-Alfa Bank Story​

By Dexter Filkins
October 7, 2020
"...In recent weeks, scientists and others quoted in my story have been summoned to testify to a grand jury impanelled by John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Attorney General William Barr to investigate potential criminal conduct in the Russia probe. It is unclear whether lawyers for the Justice Department and Alfa Bank are working together, but they share an interest in pursuing people who have investigated Trump’s ties to Russia. “There’s a unity of purpose,” one lawyer involved in the litigation told me..."


Your posts are too long. I’ll get back to you when I have more time.
 
Your posts are too long. I’ll get back to you when I have more time.
Not as long as Barr-Durham-Trump manipulation of MSM too distracted to pay close attention.
Consider the outcome of the entire DC Appellate Court panel hearing the arguments in the disgraceful Barr attempt to drop
Flynn's guilty plea(s) with prejudice. Their ruling forced the mob boss to pardon Flynn to buy his silence, the abuse of presidential pardon
authority Barr was attempting to protect Trump from being forced by Flynn to perform because issuing that pardon was performed purely in Trump's corrupt personal interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Flynn#Subsequent_proceedings

 
Last edited:
Do cops follow manufactured evidence they knew was fake? Do cops falsify documents to bolster the case?

Because that happened.

No it didn't.
The Mueller probe was found on sound footing.
So was crossfire.
 
No it didn't.
The Mueller probe was found on sound footing.
So was crossfire.
Hmm, yes, that must be why many things are being found to be false or misleading to the courts and the public.
 
So cite the DOJ official in that article.
Its funny you think I'm going to pretend to humor your fallacy argument, I'm not.

It wasn't secret. You know it; pretending that your undue bar to evidence creates a secret investigation is laughable and you should be able to admit that. But keep trying to make a bad argument, maybe someone will bite on that nonsense.
 
Its funny you think I'm going to pretend to humor your fallacy argument, I'm not.

It wasn't secret. You know it; pretending that your undue bar to evidence creates a secret investigation is laughable and you should be able to admit that. But keep trying to make a bad argument, maybe someone will bite on that nonsense.
Okay, so cite the DOJ official in that article then. If the investigation was out in the open as you claim, then that request shouldn’t be a problem for you.
 
Okay, so cite the DOJ official in that article then. If the investigation was out in the open as you claim, then that request shouldn’t be a problem for you.
LOL if its in the NYT how in the world can it be secret?
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...k-communications-campaign-manager-claims.html


This and more came out in trial today.

Jim Baker also testified that he is 100% sure that Sussman told him he was NOT representing any client when he brought the Alfa Bank info to the FBI.

The Clinton revelation isn't important for Sussman as he's only charged with lying to the FBI but Mook dropped direct the link to Hilary right in her lap.
I guess there was Russian collusion by one of the candidates to try and effect the elections after all.
 
Again, your dishonest posts is what is pissing me off. She did exactly what she was accused of. The FBI was engaged in an investigation that wouldn't bear scrutiny, so they didn't want it examined. Further, they knew the information that opened it was fake.

At any point you can acknowledge those things and quit posting dishonest characterization of me as pissed off.

A final question for you, do you think a political campaign should be able to manipulate the FBI into an investigation by manufacturing evidence?
Did she? How are those being dishonest characterisation? It appears that Durham is clutching at straws.
 
I’m curious who they talked to.
“Law enforcement officials”
“F.B.I. and intelligence officials”
“one official”
“the officials”
“A senior intelligence official”
“a second senior official”
 
Again ??? They hired a tech outfit to spy on Trump. Created a false story that he was communicating with a Russian bank. Brought the false story to the FBI on behalf of Hillary hoping they would start an FBI investigation on her political rival. And he lied about representing Hillary. FBI GC Baker said he never would have even talked to Sussman if he hadn't have lied about the HIllary connection.

"Thin?" Only in the minds of Hillary sycophants.
None of that is at all pertinent to Sussman's trial. The only thing that is pertinent is did Sussman knowingly and intentionally lie to the FBI?

The evidence of that is thin.

It may prove thick enough for a conviction, but what Durham has to prove that is thin.

Good thing I am not a Hillary sycophant.

That I can see the thinness of Durham's evidence against Sussman doesn't require such Hillary sycophancy.
 
Flynn is a crazy clown, but which lie cost more? Flynn’s lie didn’t impact anything on the FBI side.
Ah, but Flynn's lie and "crazy clown" was on the inside of our military and on the inside of the National Security system and put all of America at risk by his "crazy clown" lack of trustworthiness.

Sussman's lie and lack of trustworthiness didn't put our Military and our National Security system at risk.
 
The entire point of the trial has to do with Sussmann lying to the FBI regarding his representing the Hillary campaign in presenting information (concocted) to them. Hillary was implicated as being advised of the matter. So, although she's not standing on trial (yet) this trial is very much about her.

Of course they might be, but then there was no reason to believe agents of the FBI would lie to the FISA court in order to spy on Trump either. There's always the possibility that a juror could lie in order to get on the jury to influence the outcome. It's not as if jury tampering has never happened.

See above. It is relevant because the trial is all about the workings of the Hillary campaign of which Sussmann was working for.
The only person on trial is Sussman, did he lie to the FBI or didn't he?

None of that other stuff is on trial.

Did he lie to the FBI or didn't he?

Period.

Bottom Line.

Finito.
 
Lou, Democrats from Hillary's campaign and the FBI have testified in this trial that the whole Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a lie.

They have testified that it was a lie concocted by the Clinton campaign.

You can't spin your way around that.

Try being honest - it might hurt at first, but the truth will set you free. Think of finding the truth like achieving sobriety... think of it like a 12 step program ;)
Good.

None of that is on trial here, now is it?

That isn't spin.

I am always honest, that is why I can tell that Sussman is on trial regarding whether he lied to the FBI or didn't lie to the FBI.

All that other stuff you mentioned IS NOT ON TRIAL HERE and that isn't SPIN that is reality.

So there is that.
 
Ah, but Flynn's lie and "crazy clown" was on the inside of our military and on the inside of the National Security system and put all of America at risk by his "crazy clown" lack of trustworthiness.

Sussman's lie and lack of trustworthiness didn't put our Military and our National Security system at risk.
Agreed, but that’s not a qualifier for the criminal charge.
 
Back
Top Bottom