Did Durham Read "Last Of The Mohicans"????

[PoliticalChic]

Why would I lie like Fox News? You (still) need to catch up on reality.

What is gratifying about this poster is that he, stereotypically, cannot conceive of the death blow the Democrats just got from Durham.....and they sense the encroaching darkness.

I bet their predecssor felt the same way in that bunker in Berlin just before he ended the Reich.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, he isn't. This is a response to the motion of the defense to strike his "background information" from the filing because it created such a stir amongst right-wing media outlets.

He's saying to the judge that he isn't responsible for how it was interpreted and went on to say that he would file under seal if he filed another motion that had these kinds of remarks.

The exact opposite from stating the right-wing media is correct.

• 6 minutes ago
• Add bookmark
• #15

forkup said:
Maybe I can be of assistance.

Durham says 'no basis' to strike 'factual background' from filing, denies intent to 'politicize' Sussmann case​

Special Counsel John Durham, responding to Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann’s motion to have the court “strike” the “factual background” section from his latest filing. Durham denied that he “intentionally sought to politicize” the case, but instead, included “additional factual detail” that he...

www.foxnews.com
Durham added: "If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information."

Seems Durham is disavowing the coverage.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

He is referring to the attempt to say lying didn't matter:

"Michael Sussmann’s Lawyers: It’s OK If He Lied To The FBI​

On Feb. 17, attorneys for Michael Sussmann, the former attorney for the Hillary Clinton campaign, filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case pending against him in the D.C. district court. Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussmann in September 2021, in a one-count indictment, with lying to former FBI General Counsel James Baker in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

Specifically, the indictment charged that when Sussmann met with Baker on September 19, 2016, and provided him “white papers” and data files purporting to show the Trump organization had established a secret communications channel with the Russia-connected Alfa Bank, Sussmann falsely claimed he was not acting on behalf of a client. In truth, the indictment alleged, Sussmann was working both for the Clinton campaign and an unnamed “U.S. technology industry executive,” since identified as Rodney Joffe.


... remember that the law on materiality is clear that the falsehood need not actually influence the agency’s decision-making process, but merely needs to be “capable” of doing so."

Michael Sussmann’s Lawyers: It’s OK If He Lied To The FBI​

Michael Sussmann’s arguments falter when considered against controlling precedent and the totality of the facts alleged in the indictment.

thefederalist.com

 

[okfine]

What is gratifying about this poster is that he, stereotypically, cannot conceive of the death blow the Democrats just got from Durham.....and they sense the encroaching darkness.

I bet their predecssor felt the same way in that bunker in Berlin just before he ended the Reich.

Now you talk to yourself. Get a grip.

 

[forkup]

Just the opposite.

You should read more carefully.


Sussman's lawyers tried to claim the lie was immaterial.

"... remember that the law on materiality is clear that the falsehood need not actually influence the agency’s decision-making process, but merely needs to be “capable” of doing so."



Durham said....WRONG.

As you are.....WRONG.

I don't care that he denied that the motion wasn't material. I care that he did by disavowing the actual media
coverage by the right.

Of course, he'll deny he filed the motion for political reasons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't care that he denied that the motion wasn't material. I care that he did by disavowing the actual media
coverage by the right.

Of course, he'll deny he filed the motion for political reasons.

 

[lantern2814]

Here is a quote from Durham...

“If third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the government’s motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government’s inclusion of this information,” he wrote.

In other words he says that some media outlets (like Fox News) are full of crap.

I see no mention of Fox in there moron. That little word IF is in there though. That means there may not have been any misinterpretations. Also means that your precious CNN and MSNBCCP may be the ones spouting lies about this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see no mention of Fox in there moron. That little word IF is in there though. That means there may not have been any misinterpretations. Also means that your precious CNN and MSNBCCP may be the ones spouting lies about this.

They are really frightened by this development.


Excellent.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 603150

Great response!!! A picture of a newspaper. However will I respond to such an insightful counter-argument???

Wait, I think I know............ You're a political hack without a grain of intellectual honesty.

 

[okfine]

No, he isn't. This is a response to the motion of the defense to strike his "background information" from the filing because it created such a stir amongst right-wing media outlets.

He's saying to the judge that he isn't responsible for how it was interpreted and went on to say that he would file under seal if he filed another motion that had these kinds of remarks.

The exact opposite from stating the right-wing media is correct.

That is correct. And it is RW media who can't be honest, and for that matter, trusted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Great response!!! A picture of a newspaper. However will I respond to such an insightful counter-argument???

Wait, I think I know............ You're a political hack without a grain of intellectual honesty.

Wow.....Durham's really got you worried.



You should wipe the sweat off your forehead....



......and the drool off your chin.

 

[okfine]

I see no mention of Fox in there moron. That little word IF is in there though. That means there may not have been any misinterpretations. Also means that your precious CNN and MSNBCCP may be the ones spouting lies about this.

I never said it was in the statement, Master Moron. Was Fox adding to their interpretation of said statement? Yes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

1. It’s Just Those Crazy Right-Wingers​

In his opening salvo in the Sussmann counter-offensive, Savage began his New York Times column by noting that Durham’s Friday night filing “set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump.”

Framing the “furor” as right-wing proves a ready go-to for a corrupt media seeking to discount the substance of the reporting. Stelter likewise hit this talking point repeatedly over at CNN, in his article “Right-wing media said it was exposing a scandal. What it really revealed is how bad information spreads in MAGA world.”

Hillary Clinton likewise pushed the right-wingers angle, tweeting that “Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones.”

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

 

[ColonelAngus]

Talking on Durham... Did you know he's not answering questions about RW media's mis-representation of his statement?
You should read up on it. Maybe your propaganda will dissipate. Maybe.

Why dont you tell us about it in your own words?

 

[okfine]

Great response!!! A picture of a newspaper. However will I respond to such an insightful counter-argument???

Wait, I think I know............ You're a political hack without a grain of intellectual honesty.

She is a cut and paste fuck up to the 9th degree.

 

[forkup]

Wow.....Durham's really got you worried.



You should wipe the sweat off your forehead....



......and the drool off your chin.

Worried? About what exactly?

A prosecutor files a motion to examine potential conflicts of interests between the person charged and his lawyers.

For some reason completely immaterial to the motion he adds "background". In it, he alleges that that lawyer also worked with or for a tech firm that did a DNS search (a search that tells a person which servers are talking to each other, not what's being said) both in Trump towers and the White House (they have since said it was the White House under Obama).

The motion did not say the tech firm worked for Clinton, or for that matter that anything illegal happened.

In fact, Durham yesterday filed an explanation saying "if third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts in the governments motion, it does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the government's inclusion of the information" but he did add that he will do further motions under seal.


What exactly do you think is worrying here? Is it the lack of charge? The lack of link between the tech exec and Clinton? Or the fact that the prosecutor is saying that you guys are wrong?

 

[22lcidw]

Durham himslef just tossed his own followers under the bus. And so another Trumptard conspiracy scam dies with a whimper.

It won't matter. Trumptards never learn. They'll fall just as hard for the next scam.

Progs have successfully divided this nation. They control the airwaves, most of the print and a lot of social media. Repubs have theirs but it is miniscule compared to Progs. And yet they know common sense more than Progs will ever. Tell us about Democracy again.

 

[forkup]

She is a cut and paste fuck up to the 9th degree.

Yea I know that's why I hardly ever respond to her. It was just tempting this time. I've never seen anybody, even on this board both this condescending and this wrong at the same time. And she's totally shameless about it.

 

[okfine]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

1. It’s Just Those Crazy Right-Wingers​

In his opening salvo in the Sussmann counter-offensive, Savage began his New York Times column by noting that Durham’s Friday night filing “set off a furor among right-wing outlets about purported spying on former President Donald J. Trump.”

Framing the “furor” as right-wing proves a ready go-to for a corrupt media seeking to discount the substance of the reporting. Stelter likewise hit this talking point repeatedly over at CNN, in his article “Right-wing media said it was exposing a scandal. What it really revealed is how bad information spreads in MAGA world.”

Hillary Clinton likewise pushed the right-wingers angle, tweeting that “Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones.”

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com

You, again, take it as something else. Did Fox News give you a degree in something?

Maybe Sarah Palins lawsuit should have gone her way. Fox News loves that it didn't. If she would have then they would get sued for their bullshit ways. It would ruin their business model and destroy them.

 

[okfine]

Yea I know that's why I hardly ever respond to her. It was just tempting this time. I've never seen anybody, even on this board both this condescending and this wrong at the same time. And she's totally shameless about it.

Same here. She needs a spanking on this OP and deserves it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations​

2. Pay No Attention to the Facts Behind the Filing​

The second narrative pushed by Savage and then quickly parroted by his ilk is that the facts behind Durham’s most recent court filing are too dense for readers to bother using their brainpower to decipher. Yes, I am serious.

The facts “also tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time—raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims,” Savage wrote in his Monday pro bono P.R. piece for Sussmann.

Amazingly, CNN quoted this passage in its coverage of the issue, demonstrating the utter lack of regard in which the leftist press holds its readers."

5 Media Lies About The Latest Special Counsel Revelations

The Durham deniers’ talking points remain gibberish. They are furiously attempting to hand-wave away the facts the special counsel has found.

thefederalist.com