• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

John Durham demands docs from DNC, Hillary Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS

MTAtech said:
They did. See: https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):
Click to expand...
Give it up. If their were strong evidence or even weak evidence of collusion, the Mueller Investigation would have concluded such and followed through. The Mueller Conclusion was "No evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
 
What if...? said:
I’m going with reading it “let’s go eat shit”.

Makes it more fun for me, since we’re going schoolyard.
Click to expand...
What you go with is your business. The slogan has gone viral as slang for "**** Joe Biden" since that particular NASCAR race.
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Give it up. If their were strong evidence or even weak evidence of collusion, the Mueller Investigation would have concluded such and followed through. The Mueller Conclusion was "No evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Click to expand...

weeellll....

"1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration."

Link
 
j brown's body said:
weeellll....

"1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration."

Link
Click to expand...
You are desperately attempting to try a case on social media. Unfortunately for you, Mueller's final conclusion was: No evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
What you go with is your business. The slogan has gone viral as slang for "**** Joe Biden" since that particular NASCAR race.
Click to expand...
In areas of the country unabashed in their racism....

post said:
"Lets go Brandon" is a denial mechanism, a symptom of developmental injury....

Biden could not possibly be "legit" because the most racist sports fans in the U.S. are all chanting, Eff You Biden, so yeah, the election was stolen from "Donald J. Victim," -snip-
Click to expand...

www.emptywheel.net

Josh Marshall's "Team on the Field:" Putting GOP on Defense Over Russia Requires Reversing Their Offense - emptywheel

People believe that Biden is weak on Ukraine not just because Democrats aren't screaming about how complicit Trump and his enablers are. They believe it because Trump has seeded two screaming conspiracy theories that have filled that void with false denials that all the suspicions about Trump...
www.emptywheel.net www.emptywheel.net
April 22, 2022

"..While I haven’t focused on undermining the ridiculous claims the GOP are making about the “Hunter Biden” “laptop” — I have written just three stories this year (one, two, three), though that number would be far more if you count my focus on the investigation into Rudy — I’ve written 28 stories on the Durham investigation this year. Among other things, I have shown that:

  • Six different threads of evidence from the Mueller investigation undermine the core premise of the Durham investigation. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • One of the only other reporters covering this stuff with any attention, Charlie Savage, has to cater to a general audience. Meanwhile, an absolute torrent of propaganda from the frothy right has ignored the accumulated evidence not just of prosecutorial abuse, but shocking sloppiness. Instead, they spin Durham’s unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as fact, and from that, conclude that Trump wasn’t really badly implicated by Russia, but instead that was all made up by Hillary ahead of time.

    If I weren’t alone swimming against this tide, Durham’s rank ignorance would actually be a great vehicle to correct the frothers. As I’ve noted, Durham and his rubes appear entirely unaware that the suspicions of the researchers trying to understand the Alfa Bank anomalies — that Trump had back channel communications with the Kremlin, that people close to Trump were laundering payments from oligarchs close to Trump, and that a family member of an Alfa Bank oligarch might be helping — all proved to be true... "
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
What you go with is your business. The slogan has gone viral as slang for "**** Joe Biden" since that particular NASCAR race.
Click to expand...
Give it time. I’m focus grouping variants.

Like Brandon is Turkish for “**** goats”.

So we can chuckle when y’all say let’s go Brandon!
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Give it up. If their were strong evidence or even weak evidence of collusion, the Mueller Investigation would have concluded such and followed through. The Mueller Conclusion was "No evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Click to expand...

Same report outlined obstruction of justice Trump did commit.
 
Deuce said:
Same report outlined obstruction of justice Trump did commit.
Click to expand...
Those were nothing more then Mueller's attempt to nail Trump on alleged process crimes after he failed to nail him on collusion. They were just recommendations. Barr saw them for what they were....flimsy and without evidence.
 
What if...? said:
Give it time. I’m focus grouping variants.

Like Brandon is Turkish for “**** goats”.

So we can chuckle when y’all say let’s go Brandon!
Click to expand...
Either way, we know that the Term "Let's Go Brandon" is getting under your skin for what you know it represents. Your sitting in your basement in an unlaundered tee shirt scrambling to come up with alternative meanings is amusing, but meaningless.
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Either way, we know that the Term "Let's Go Brandon" is getting under your skin for what you know it represents. Your sitting in your basement in an unlaundered tee shirt scrambling to come up with alternative meanings is amusing, but meaningless.
Click to expand...
Boy.

Don’t make any bets based on your assessments.

You’ll lose.
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Those were nothing more then Mueller's attempt to nail Trump on alleged process crimes after he failed to nail him on collusion. They were just recommendations. Barr saw them for what they were....flimsy and without evidence.
Click to expand...
It would be hard to nail anyone for collusion
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
Those were nothing more then Mueller's attempt to nail Trump on alleged process crimes after he failed to nail him on collusion. They were just recommendations. Barr saw them for what they were....flimsy and without evidence.
Click to expand...
"Process crimes" lol way to repeat the old talking points. It's hilarious that you folks want to decide obstruction of justice is not a big deal.

Weird how you accept the report when you think it agrees with you, but when it doesn't... "FLIMSY!!"
 
Deuce said:
"Process crimes" lol way to repeat the old talking points. It's hilarious that you folks want to decide obstruction of justice is not a big deal.

Weird how you accept the report when you think it agrees with you, but when it doesn't... "FLIMSY!!"
Click to expand...
It's time for you libruls to grow up on that. Read the section in the link in regards to alleged obstruction of justice:

AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Mueller did not make any actual conclusions that Trump committed obstruction of justice
 
Deuce said:
"Process crimes" lol way to repeat the old talking points. It's hilarious that you folks want to decide obstruction of justice is not a big deal.

Weird how you accept the report when you think it agrees with you, but when it doesn't... "FLIMSY!!"
Click to expand...
First you would have to prove rather then just assume that obstruction of justice occurred. Mueller did not conclude that:

AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
It's time for you libruls to grow up on that. Read the section in the link in regards to alleged obstruction of justice:

AG March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org

Mueller did not make any actual conclusions that Trump committed obstruction of justice
Click to expand...
Learn to read based on the whole context:

Mueller spelled out that he could not issue a conclusion that Trump committed obstruction of justice, as this would in effect be a government body accusing him of a crime. Being the president at the time, however, Trump could not be indicted based on the findings of DOJ memos from the 70s that say the president can't be the subject of a criminal indictment. According to Mueller, this would deny Trump his constitutional right to face his accusers, as the government would be accusing him of a crime without putting him on trial to prove it. Prosecuting a sitting president, obviously, is the jurisdiction of Congress. So, Mueller presented the evidence and left it to Congress to take anything further.

Mueller even said that if he could exonerate the president, he would have done so, and that he could not exonerate the president. I'm gonna repeat that: Mueller explicitly said he could not exonerate the president. (Trump claimed he was "totally exonerated" by the report)

Now, I was gonna say it's weird that you missed this... but you didn't link Mueller's report! You linked AG Barr's memo! LOL! Barr worked for Trump, and you're just taking him at his word? Would you give Joe Biden the same treatment? If Merrick Garland writes a memo saying Hunter Biden has not committed a crime, are you really going to take his word for it?

You need to actually read Mueller's report, not the words of a member of Trump's inner circle.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, it didn't. It means not enough to charge, let alone prove. You are trying to dance around being wrong. Instead of saying you are wrong you are tossing around insults to cover for your bullshit.

The way around this is to quit bullshitting and admit your error.
Click to expand...
You framed the Mueller report statement that it "did not establish", as meaning that Mueller hadn't found any evidence of conspiracy, coordination, and represented that statement as being an exoneration of the Trump Campaign. So now you've backtracked from that position and are now admitting that the phrase "did not establish" means that there was evidence of possible conspiracy, coordination. Just not enough of it to clear the high legal bar Mueller had for bringing forward criminal charges that had a reasonable chance of being prosecuted successfully and as such is therefore not representative of an complete exoneration by Mueller. It's you who needs to stop the BS and admit your errors. And how btw. An update on the pretrial hearings. Durham has withdrawn the CIA guy who concluded the data was human created from his witness list. A conclusion he now says the FBI doesn't necessarily share.
 
Atomic Kid said:
. And how btw. An update on the pretrial hearings. Durham has withdrawn the CIA guy who concluded the data was human created from his witness list. A conclusion he now says the FBI doesn't necessarily share.
Click to expand...

Sussman is being charged with making a false statement-- ie that he was NOT working for the Clinton campaign when he allegedly was.
Durham doesn't need a witness testifying the entire effort was to defraud the government (ie. it was all made up in order to induce the government to investigate something that wasn't there).
It is of course interesting that such a witness exists to such an allegation, and that Durham has said there is an ongoing criminal investigation.

Its amusing-- the Clinton campaign is objecting to the release of information requested by Durham claiming attorney-client privilege.
Meanwhile, Sussman defense is in saying no such privilege existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom