LOL re: Durham

GermanSuplex said:
I quoted you earlier, but I have to do it again after seeing Trump’s “Truth” (what the cult calls “Tweets”).

*Sidenote - American exceptionalism means you can’t ask why school shootings are unique to America (according to Cancun Cruz), but I guess all this horseshit is ok? I also notice Trump left off mass shootings from his list.

View attachment 14539
Click to expand...

What an ass.
 
Renzatic said:
It was an open and shut case! The Deep State and their Hillary friendly lawyer obviously rigged the trial!
Click to expand...

Durham got exactly what he wanted, which was testimony under oath.

Robby Mook will probably never work another high-profile campaign.
 
Renzatic said:
You can get that from a subpoena.

What Durham wanted was a show.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But yes a show in which the campaign manager for Clinton admitted under oath that Hillary is the one who approved using the secret Russian collusion document even though they were uncertain to its authenticity.

If that had come out in a deposition, no one would have probably known. But Durham got him to say it in open court under oath.
 
Herdfan said:
Maybe. But yes a show in which the campaign manager for Clinton admitted under oath that Hillary is the one who approved using the secret Russian collusion document even though they were uncertain to its authenticity.

If that had come out in a deposition, no one would have probably known. But Durham got him to say it in open court under oath.
Click to expand...

The Steele Dossier was never used during the 2016 election, and leaked only after Trump had won the election. That the Clinton campaign had paid Fusion GPS for the opposition research that lead to it has long since been known.
 
Herdfan said:
Maybe. But yes a show in which the campaign manager for Clinton admitted under oath that Hillary is the one who approved using the secret Russian collusion document even though they were uncertain to its authenticity.

If that had come out in a deposition, no one would have probably known. But Durham got him to say it in open court under oath.
Click to expand...
So you believe Durham violated his official mandate AND the public trust in order to score political points and give fodder to conspiracy theories. And this is something to be proud of?

Durham was asked to find illegal behavior. He didn’t; instead he abused his office to further attacks on Clinton’s campaign… and for what reason? She isn’t going to run again. This is all in the service of assuaging Trump’s hurt feelings about his own party’s investigation of him which led to the Mueller report.

The fact that many people applaud such unethical behavior from Durham is disturbing.

Millions of dollars in taxpayer money is being spent to give weekly fodder to Fox News for sensationalist stories.
 
SuperMatt said:
and for what reason? She isn’t going to run again.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. But not sure about it either.

SuperMatt said:
Durham was asked to find illegal behavior. He didn’t;
Click to expand...

He did. Just because the jury found him Not Guilty doesn't mean he didn't commit illegal behavior. He lied to the FBI and a reading of the evidence would show that. But when you have a jury foreman that publicly states that we have bigger things to worry about than lying the FBI, well then..........

“Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” said the foreperson of the jury in Sussmann’s case, according to Politico.
Click to expand...

Plus with all the Clinton donors on the jury, there was no way he was going to be found Guilty.
 
Renzatic said:
Per the jury, the evidence didn't rise to the level of criminal activity. The evidence against him was fairly thin.
Click to expand...
Guilty, even after proven innocent. The jury is rigged because everybody that lives in DC is part of Hillary‘s ring of baby-eating cannibals!

It‘s amazing to see how deep the true believers will dive into conspiracy theories when reality doesn’t align with their prejudices. They just KNOW Hillary committed crimes against St. Donald, and nothing will convince them otherwise.
 
SuperMatt said:
Guilty, even after proven innocent. The jury is rigged ,,,,,,
Click to expand...

No, jury's are never rigged. You of all people should know better.

How many white people have you bitched about getting off by a white jury when they commit a crime against a black person? It can happen with political alliances just as easily as with skin color.
 
Herdfan said:
No, jury's are never rigged. You of all people should know better.

How many white people have you bitched about getting off by a white jury when they commit a crime against a black person? It can happen with political alliances just as easily as with skin color.
Click to expand...
Wait. So a jury of one's peers is NO longer a thing?

You'd think if anyone was worried about this really being a thing, a change of venue would have been asked for. Let alone this would have been known during the vetting of jurors, and the lawyers had no issue it seems.

Wha? That makes no sense, unless the new reach is that Durham's team intentionally tanked a case that was already laughably shaky.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
Wha? That makes no sense, unless the new reach is that Durham's team intentionally tanked a case that was already laughably shaky.
Click to expand...

I can't discount that. Maybe as @Renzatic says, it was just for show. But it has showed some things that Dems may not have wanted seen.
 
Herdfan said:
I can't discount that. Maybe as @Renzatic says, it was just for show. But it has showed some things that Dems may not have wanted seen.
Click to expand...
It shows something to anyone with an axe still to grind with Hilary who is a non entity in politics now. Of course it was for show, to appease the people who wanted an investigation that's lasted longer than the investigation they are supposedly investigating. :rolleyes:

dog and po·ny show

noun
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN

  1. an elaborate display or presentation, especially as part of a promotional campaign.
    "the department never really had a chance to get its dog and pony show under way"
Click to expand...

The only people giving a rat's rear end about anything Hilary related are NOT dems.

Apply logic.
 
Last edited:
Herdfan said:
I can't discount that. Maybe as @Renzatic says, it was just for show. But it has showed some things that Dems may not have wanted seen.
Click to expand...

Not really. It was established that Sussman did hand information over to the FBI to investigate, claiming he was doing so of his own volition. Durham's case was built around the assumption that he was lying, considering he did also work for the Clinton campaign at the time.

So for Durham's case to work, they'd have to prove that the Clinton campaign knew he was handing over this evidence, and he did so knowingly on their behalf. He failed to provide that evidence, and his only argument in opposition was that Sussman could just have easily lied as he did tell the truth when he spoke to the FBI, considering there was a conflict of interests.

In short, it was a weak case.
 
Herdfan said:
No, jury's are never rigged. You of all people should know better.

How many white people have you bitched about getting off by a white jury when they commit a crime against a black person? It can happen with political alliances just as easily as with skin color.
Click to expand...
I recommend a history lesson on all-white juries and black defendants or victims and the current rules we have because of that history.

I’m unaware of evidence of a similar phenomenon based around political allegiances of jurors. Very few politicians ever end up before a jury anyway.
 
SuperMatt said:
I Very few politicians ever end up before a jury anyway.
Click to expand...

Sadly true. :(
JayMysteri0 said:
It shows something to anyone with an axe still to grind with Hilary who is a non entity in politics now.
Click to expand...

So is your position that she isn't going to run? I am not so sure. Biden can't run again, Harris has horrible unfavorable ratings and none of the younger Dems can seem to get any traction. She would be the best candidate they could put up.
 

Similar threads

Thomas Veil
Oh yeah...remember that Durham probe?
Replies
5
Views
419
SuperMatt
SuperMatt
Back
Top