Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia

GBR0988

By GBR0988,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


Scarlet Blackshirt

Scarlet

Posted
Posted

 

Quote

I have spent an inordinate amount of time with the Michael Sussmann case over the last few weeks. I watched a fair bit of it in person. And I read the rest of the case in the thousands of pages of trial transcripts. 

 

The experience of the trial left me with three main impressions:

 

First, that the case against Sussmann was not just weak but was frankly beneath the standards of reasonable federal prosecution;

 

second, that the case was only glancingly about Sussmann and his supposed lie at all;

 

rather, third, the case was fundamentally about displacing the conventional worldview associated with the Trump scandals and establishing the respectability of the insurgent Trumpist counter-narrative. In that effort, as with the effort to convict Sussmann, Durham has failed. 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/hillary-clinton-durham-investigation-robby-mook/

 

No, I mean a link proving the absurd claim you just made that the Durham fiasco "put to bed... the Russia nonsense" or whatever (seems like there was an autocorrect issue?).

 

Here, I'll copy it for you so there's no confusion:

 

Quote

In one single trial Durham, put to bed and of the Trump Russia nonsense that was still out there and got the HRC campaign to admit they stared it all based on zero evidence.

 

WHEN IN FACT (and you're going to get a chuckle out of this because it's the opposite of what you seem to have been claiming):

 

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

 

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

 

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

 

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

 

[this part may seem familiar to you, Arch - knapplc]

 

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

 

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

 

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

 

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

 

 

It's a good piece. I encourage you to read it.

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Scarlet said:
Quote

rather, third, the case was fundamentally about displacing the conventional worldview associated with the Trump scandals and establishing the respectability of the insurgent Trumpist counter-narrative. In that effort, as with the effort to convict Sussmann, Durham has failed. 

 

 

 

But IT IS SO WEIRD that we have just had that very thought inserted into this thread by a Very Reasonable Person who could not be pushing propaganda out of bias. Right?

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Archy1221 Defensive Coordinator

Archy1221

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

No, I mean a link proving the absurd claim you just made that the Durham fiasco "put to bed... the Russia nonsense" or whatever (seems like there was an autocorrect issue?).

 

Here, I'll copy it for you so there's no confusion:

 

 

WHEN IN FACT (and you're going to get a chuckle out of this because it's the opposite of what you seem to have been claiming):

 

 

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

 

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

 

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

 

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

 

[this part may seem familiar to you, Arch - knapplc]

 

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

 

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

 

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

 

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

 

 

 

It's a good piece. I encourage you to read it.

LOL

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

nic Backup

nic

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

It's sad that people who claim to love law and order are happy about this.

Who said anything about being happy. Muellers mandate was to prove Russian collution and nail Trump. He ended up with peripheral charges against shady minions that work in business and politics. Surprise, surprise. And they all get pardoned anyway. Perhaps it was a waste of money. Now they are going after Trump for Jan 6th and he is still walking around and may soon be tweet storming again.  How is this dude so hard to take down? 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
funhusker All-American

funhusker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, nic said:

Who said anything about being happy. Muellers mandate was to prove Russian collution and nail Trump. He ended up with peripheral charges against shady minions that work in business and politics. Surprise, surprise. And they all get pardoned anyway. Perhaps it was a waste of money. Now they are going after Trump for Jan 6th and he is still walking around and may soon be tweet storming again.  How is this dude so hard to take down? 

Because the people elected to write laws are hesitant to write laws that with enough teeth to easily prosecute the people that make laws…?!?!

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, nic said:

Who said anything about being happy. Muellers mandate was to prove Russian collution and nail Trump. He ended up with peripheral charges against shady minions that work in business and politics. Surprise, surprise. And they all get pardoned anyway. Perhaps it was a waste of money. Now they are going after Trump for Jan 6th and he is still walking around and may soon be tweet storming again.  How is this dude so hard to take down? 

 

This pretty well illustrates why he's so hard to take down. With half the country willing to let him walk because he says the things out loud they feel in their hearts, there's no mandate to prosecute.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Archy1221 Defensive Coordinator

Archy1221

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI.

When did Bill Barr allege this?  Appreciate the source link this article uses.  
 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

I’ve explained what was shown at trial and that jurors dismissed for whatever reason they chose (the foreperson reason was she thought there were more important things to focus on than lying to fbi).  Not sure why you won’t accept these facts, but to each his own.  
 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

The Clinton campaign absolutely did this as evidenced by the campaign manager admitting such on the stand.  :dunno 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

No, I mean a link proving the absurd claim you just made that the Durham fiasco "put to bed... the Russia nonsense" or whatever (seems like there was an autocorrect issue?).

 

Here, I'll copy it for you so there's no confusion:

 

 

WHEN IN FACT (and you're going to get a chuckle out of this because it's the opposite of what you seem to have been claiming):

 

 

John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It.

 

Trump’s prosecutor face-plants.

 

Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice.

 

By 2020, Barr was conceding that Durham might not reach all the way up to Barack Obama but would bring down his accomplices. “As to President Obama and Vice-President Biden,” he said that spring, “whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.” By the fall, Barr was reportedly “communicating that Durham is taking his investigation extremely seriously and is focused on winning prosecutions.”

 

[this part may seem familiar to you, Arch - knapplc]

 

The trial went badly enough for Durham that his fans in the right-wing media were already laying the groundwork for acquittal by blaming the judge for allowing a juror who believed (but wasn’t sure) she had contributed to Clinton’s campaign. That excuse might have held some water in the event of a hung jury. But the jury’s unanimous and extremely speedy verdict suggests a single possible former Clinton-donating juror is not the reason. The reason is that Durham didn’t have the goods.

 

In the meantime, Durham supplied hours of commentary for Fox News personalities by filling his indictment with lurid claims that were not backed by evidence. Durham attempted to use the Sussmann trial to prove a version of the theory Trump claimed all along: that the Clinton campaign and the FBI had opened an investigation into Trump, knowing its evidence was fake, and then leaked the evidence of the investigation to the media in order to elect Hillary.

 

Durham tried to use his charge against Sussmann as a hook for the larger conspiracy theory that he, Trump, and Barr have been expounding: that investigation was ginned up in order to smear Trump in the media before the election. “You can see what the plan was,” Assistant Special Counsel Andrew DeFilippis told the jury. “It was to create an October surprise by giving information both to the media and to the FBI to get the media to write that there was an FBI investigation.”

 

There are several flaws with this theory. The first is that the Russia investigation was already underway before Sussmann approached the FBI with his suspicions about the server.

 

 

 

It's a good piece. I encourage you to read it.

It’s behind a paywall.  

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...