- Joined
- Nov 27, 2016
- Messages
- 30,840
- Reaction score
- 6,485
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There has been no further investigation. Trump insured that.
Mueller did say that he had come up with no evidence of a conspiracy, so he sent the report to Justice (as per his instructions).
I wound up being up to Barr whether to forward any of material to the grand jury.
And since Barr had been installed specifically to cover up for Trump, that wasn’t going to happen.
The evidence of collusion is undeniable, very well documented, but hardly complete.
But, since you continue that nothing happened and all the facts don’t exist.
Please explain the Trump tower meeting.
What were Russian intelligence officials doing in the campaign headquarters of a presidential candidate during an election?????
There is no scenario under which that could be passed off as normal, or acceptable.
A real patriot would have called the FBI right then.
(frankly, I thought Paul Manafort’s appointment as Campaign manager should have been enough to initiate an investigation. His Moscow ties were common knowledge even then).
Not my savior, and not a terrorist either.I'm talking about your Orange Savior, Trump the Terrorist.
Its not 2017 anymore.
We already there was no basis for thinking he conspired with Russia.
Heck, we just had a trial where the defendant was acquitted because he was able to show that FBI didn't care there was no evidence of a conspiracy they were going to investigate anyways.
That’s as close as any traditional media outlet has come to looking at the flimsy predication for Durham’s initial appointment.Mr. Barr’s mandate to Mr. Durham appears to have been to investigate a series of conspiracy theories.
By Jack Goldsmith, Nathaniel SobelThe Durham Investigation: What We Know and What It Means
The investigation as it developed should not have been conducted by a federal prosecutor, and Attorney General Barr’s public commentary has seriously (and somewhatwww.lawfareblog.com
Thursday, July 9, 2020
"..Durham’s Review Becomes Public
On May 13, (2019).. The Times later confirmed that Barr had appointed Durham “several weeks” earlier. (The official Order initiating the investigation, if any, has never been disclosed. Nor has the official date of the appointment.) The Wall Street Journal additionally reported that, according to a “person familiar with the decision,” Durham was charged with helping to evaluate “whether the government’s intelligence-gathering efforts in the early stages of the probe were legal and appropriate..”
June 2, 2022There Was No Crime Predicating the Durham Investigation - emptywheel
For years, Durham has been seeking proof that the predication of the Russian investigation was faulty. The only thing he has proven is that his own investigation was predicated on lies.www.emptywheel.net
"Deep in a NYT piece that suggests but does not conclude that John Durham’s purpose is to feed conspiracy theories, Charlie Savage writes,
That’s as close as any traditional media outlet has come to looking at the flimsy predication for Durham’s initial appointment.
Billy Barr, however, has never hidden his goal. In his memoir, he describes returning to government — with an understanding about the Russian investigation gleaned from the propaganda bubble of Fox News, not any firsthand access to the evidence — with a primary purpose of undermining the Russian investigation. He describes having to appoint Durham to investigate what he believed, again based off Fox propaganda, to be a bogus scandal..."
Hello-- its not as if Mueller was able to find a conspiracy.
It didn't happen. There was NO TRUMP/RUSSIA conspiracy in 2016.
Its all together proper for the AG to investigate why the FBI thought there was.
And as we learned in the trial, the FBI LIED to their own agents about from where they received their tip.
You are missing the point here-- there was a righteous investigation occurring by the DOJ into H Biden at the time Trump spoke with Zelensky.
That is not the case with Alfa Bank, where its clear that Clinton campaign succeeded in getting the FBI to investigate that baseless yarn.
That isn't true.
The opposite of everything you posted concerning Alfa Bank, except the last part of your last sentence, is all supported by the official record, by MSM reporting, and in Alfa's now dismissed lawsuits.We have had an investigation into H Biden since 2018.
Meanwhile four reports have said there was nothing to this alfa bank story.
The FBI agents who investigated it just testified in support it was baseless.
And Mr. Sussman was just acquitted-- legally he must have told them he working for the Clinton campaign when he went there.
Shortly after he gave this testimony, prosecutors took a break, and told his lawyer they were moving towards treating Gaynor as a subject of, rather than just a witness in, the investigation..."Q. Okay. So you remember telling the government that you believed that the agents in Chicago would have been biased by Mr. Sussmann’s perception of the issue — the source’s perception of the issue if they had interviewed him before they got all of the data and analyzed it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that’s because, at the time, you believed the DNC was the source of the information itself. Right?
A. That’s because, at the time, I believed that he was a DNC attorney associated with the Democratic party and it would be potentially highly-biasing information.
Q. And you told the government, if you had provided the identity of the DNC as the source of the information, they would have known there was possible political motivation. rignt?
A. I recall that exact statement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?