*Durham Throws Cases, Working For Deep State*

[Moonglow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Cases he should easily win, he loses.
2. He does EVIL.
3. His soul will be thrown into the wood chipper.
4. He is a *LIBTARD*.
5. *LIBTARDS* are the, *DEEP STATE*.
6. Its a terrible thing to see, but i see it.

Durham loses again in court, but trial airs FBI flaws

The Danchenko verdict is the latest setback for the Trump-appointed special counsel's investigation into the FBI and Russia inquiry.

www.politico.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Excuses are like assholes everyone has one. You fucking losers can stop backtracking.

 

[Marener]

The context you talked about is the left's spin after the fact.

No, it’s looking at the entirety of the conversation and not a single text.

Don’t you think we should look at context?

 

[Independentthinker]

No, it’s looking at the entirety of the conversation and not a single text.

Don’t you think we should look at context?

give it to me

 

[Marener]

give it to me

Trey Gowdy went over this with Lisa Page under oath. Starts around page 41.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[bripat9643]

No, it’s looking at the entirety of the conversation and not a single text.

Don’t you think we should look at context?

leftwing spin.

 

[bripat9643]

Trey Gowdy went over this with Lisa Page under oath. Starts around page 41.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Yep, he made it clear the Strzok hates Republicans.

 

[Independentthinker]

Trey Gowdy went over this with Lisa Page under oath. Starts around page 41.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

She is explaining it AFTER THE FACT. The texts are the texts, not what she decided to spin afterwards. They gave her plenty of time to think up the context afterwards.

 

[Marener]

She is explaining it AFTER THE FACT. The texts are the texts, not what she decided to spin afterwards.

She’s explaining the context, which you don’t have. The text by itself is too ambiguous to reach a single conclusion.

You really don’t think you’re trying to spin it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sorry bout that,

1. Cases he should easily win, he loses.
2. He does EVIL.
3. His soul will be thrown into the wood chipper.
4. He is a *LIBTARD*.
5. *LIBTARDS* are the, *DEEP STATE*.
6. Its a terrible thing to see, but i see it.

Durham loses again in court, but trial airs FBI flaws

The Danchenko verdict is the latest setback for the Trump-appointed special counsel's investigation into the FBI and Russia inquiry.

www.politico.com

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Thank you so much!

I made a bet that this would be the reaction from the MAGA morons when Durham failed!

 

[Independentthinker]

She’s explaining the context, which you don’t have. The text by itself is too ambiguous to reach a single conclusion.

You really don’t think you’re trying to spin it?

She's explaining the context after the fact. How convenient that she had the time to come up with something to explain it all away. Frankly, anyone can do that and many have. The texts are the texts. Both of them showed just how deeply partisan they are, causing Mueller to have to get rid of him off of the team and they would have done the same to her to if she had still been there.

 

[Marener]

She's explaining the context after the fact. How convenient that she had the time to come up with something to explain it all away. Frankly, anyone can do that and many have. The texts are the texts. Both of them showed just how deeply partisan they are, causing Mueller to have to get rid of him off of the team and they would have done the same to her to if she had still been there.

Is her explanation wrong? You can’t say. You have no evidence let alone proof she she is lying. I think everyone deserves a chance to explain themselves before being drug through the mud by people like yourself.

Everyone has political beliefs, but we expect civil servants to be able to set aside their political beliefs and behave as objectively as they can. Furthermore, the most significant power the government has is diffused over many people. Page or Strzok were never found to do anything improper because they didn’t really have the sole power to do so and because they were still making decisions with an attempt at being objective.

You criticize her for “spinning” the text but you did the same exact thing you’re accusing her of doing.

 

[Independentthinker]

Is her explanation wrong? You can’t say. You have no evidence let alone proof she she is lying. I think everyone deserves a chance to explain themselves before being drug through the mud by people like yourself.

Everyone has political beliefs, but we expect civil servants to be able to set aside their political beliefs and behave as objectively as they can. Furthermore, the most significant power the government has is diffused over many people. Page or Strzok were never found to do anything improper because they didn’t really have the sole power to do so and because they were still making decisions with an attempt at being objective.

You criticize her for “spinning” the text but you did the same exact thing you’re accusing her of doing.

I told you right from the beginning that the texts are the texts and that any context you come up with would be after the fact and then you go right ahead and post a bunch of after the fact contexts. If you have any context to show me from the actual texts themselves, instead of some after the fact explanation they had plenty of time to come up with, then do it. Context comes from what happened at the time, not from your explanation afterwards after you've had time to come up with an "explanation". Do you have any at the time of the texts context or not?

 

[Marener]

I told you right from the beginning that the texts are the texts and that any context you come up with would be after the fact and then you go right ahead and post a bunch of after the fact contexts. If you have any context to show me from the actual texts themselves, instead of some after the fact explanation they had plenty of time to come up with, then do it. Context comes from what happened at the time, not from your explanation afterwards after you've had time to come up with an "explanation". Do you have any at the time of the texts context or not?

And I said you fabricated half of it and distorted the other half. I stand by it.

Are you saying that Lisa Page’s testimony is false?

 

[berg80]

No, ‘Russiagate’ Wasn’t the Hoax That Team Trump Claims It Was​

The acquittal last week of think tank analyst Igor Danchenko is a fitting final chapter in the “Russiagate” saga, as John Durham’s three-year-old probe judders to a halt. Durham, formerly the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, was appointed in 2019 by William Barr, Donald Trump’s attorney general, to look into possible misconduct by personnel from the FBI and CIA, various federal officials, and Democratic operatives with regard to allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian agents in the 2016 presidential campaign. In October 2020, Barr elevated Durham’s investigation to special counsel status, ensuring that it would continue no matter the outcome of the 2020 election.

Both Barr and Durham were fairly explicit about the fact that they saw the Trump-Russia investigation, which culminated in the Mueller report, as inappropriate, based on “the thinnest of suspicions,” and politically motivated. Thus, the Durham inquiry had an unmistakable subtext of seeking to vindicate the Trumpian narrative of a “Russia hoax” and a “witch hunt” of which Trump and some of his associates were innocent targets. Inasmuch as it set out to do that, the Durham probe—which is apparently all over except for a final report that will presumably be produced in the next few months—is a bust.

No, ‘Russiagate’ Wasn’t the Hoax That Team Trump Claims It Was

It looks like John Durham’s investigation is going out with a whimper.

www.thebulwark.com

What a colossal failure in trying to obfuscate the Mueller investigation.

 

[Skylar]

I'm more inclined to believe it was a lack of cooperation and stonewalling by the FBI and DOJ. If anything, Durham's investigation showed just how corrupt our justice really is.

Or....Durham was too focused on political messaging and telling stories than building a competent case.

I mean, charging Sussman with lying to the FBI, when 1) Sussman made no false statements 2) The 'info' he was supposed to have withheld was common knowledge.

That was stupid AF.

 

[bripat9643]

No, ‘Russiagate’ Wasn’t the Hoax That Team Trump Claims It Was​

The acquittal last week of think tank analyst Igor Danchenko is a fitting final chapter in the “Russiagate” saga, as John Durham’s three-year-old probe judders to a halt. Durham, formerly the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, was appointed in 2019 by William Barr, Donald Trump’s attorney general, to look into possible misconduct by personnel from the FBI and CIA, various federal officials, and Democratic operatives with regard to allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian agents in the 2016 presidential campaign. In October 2020, Barr elevated Durham’s investigation to special counsel status, ensuring that it would continue no matter the outcome of the 2020 election.

Both Barr and Durham were fairly explicit about the fact that they saw the Trump-Russia investigation, which culminated in the Mueller report, as inappropriate, based on “the thinnest of suspicions,” and politically motivated. Thus, the Durham inquiry had an unmistakable subtext of seeking to vindicate the Trumpian narrative of a “Russia hoax” and a “witch hunt” of which Trump and some of his associates were innocent targets. Inasmuch as it set out to do that, the Durham probe—which is apparently all over except for a final report that will presumably be produced in the next few months—is a bust.

No, ‘Russiagate’ Wasn’t the Hoax That Team Trump Claims It Was

It looks like John Durham’s investigation is going out with a whimper.

www.thebulwark.com

What a colossal failure in trying to obfuscate the Mueller investigation.

Why do you expect anyone to respect the decision of a DC jury?

Russiagate was a hoax.

 

[Skylar]

L..O..L....Now Durham is working for your "Deep (Throat) State"....
Cucks..the lot of you. On your own head be it.

That's what I love about conservatives: *someone* is always fucking them.

 

[berg80]

Why do you expect anyone to respect the decision of a DC jury?

Russiagate was a hoax.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what I love about conservatives: *someone* is always fucking them.

That's what left-wingers are all about: fucking the people who pay their bills.

 

[berg80]

Why do you expect anyone to respect the decision of a DC jury?

Russiagate was a hoax.

Yet the idea that the Mueller report exposed Russiagate as a “hoax” rests on a false binary: either Trump and/or his associates actively conspired with Russia, or Trump has been the victim of a “Russia, Russia, Russia” witch hunt. But there is also another scenario: that Trump ran as a Russia-friendly candidate, Russia interfered in the election to help Trump (as the Mueller report very clearly states), and Trump and his cronies were fine with that. And that scenario is not a hoax or a concoction of the Steele dossier.