Has Pam Bondi entered the conversation for most corrupt AG in just 6 months?

[Marener]

Then there needs to be an investigation....

There was. Several in fact. Don't you remember John Durham going on a multiyear quest to find something to prosecute and coming up almost completely empty handed?

 

[Delldude]

The HPSCI's report was written by Republicans. I believe Kash Patel was instrumental in writing it since he was running the show under Devin Nunes.

The DNI doc's were created by people under and including Obama.

Why did Nostra go off topic talking about Clinton's emails? Seems you only get upset when some people go off topic.

You brought it up not me......

 

[Marener]

The DNI doc's were created by people under and including Obama.

Be specific. What document are you referring to?

It's not the Obama administration documentation but the story you're being told about what they say. That story being told by the Republicans is a fantasy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then there needs to be an investigation....

Totally! Why didn't I think of that?

Signed,

John Durham

 

[Delldude]

Be specific. What document are you referring to?

I've been very specific and you know it..... quit with your horseshit.

It's s not the Obama administration documentation but the story you're being told about what they say.

Well then you ought to be able to prove that.

 

[popscottpopscott]

There was. Several in fact. Don't you remember John Durham going on a multiyear quest to find something to prosecute and coming up almost completely empty handed?

Durham does not prosecute... he writes a report and gives it to corrupt Garland who is the decider of prosecutions..... Corrupt Garland predictably did not choose to prosecute... surprise surprise

So.... the facts just went over your head.... how could Durham even look at evidence that has been locked away by the corrupt DOJ in a place never to be seen by only a few people... yet he never did "come up with nothing"... he literally put it in his report... but the corrupt DOJ, who was directly involved, did not at on his findings, in a coverup...

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23813493/durham3.pdf

 

[Marener]

Well then you ought to be able to prove that.

That's exactly what I've been doing. For example when I pointed out that the classified January 2017 ICA included the Steele report to indicating specifically in no uncertain terms that it was not used to create the conclusions.

Or when the CIA tradecraft review from 2025 indicates that the conclusion of Russia wanting to elect Trump was a moderate confidence instead of high confidence. Not a fabrication but a mild difference of opinion.

Or when the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously concluded that the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump.

I've been doing this, but none of you really are interested in listening or having a conversation to discuss anything with any specificity. Instead of answering my simple question, you whined.

 

[Marener]

Durham does not prosecute

This is factually incorrect. Durham had the authority to prosecute people and did. He secured a conviction for Kevin Clinesmith and prosecuted Sussmann and Danchenko unsuccessfully.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Delldude]

That's exactly what I've been doing. For example when I pointed out that the classified January 2017 ICA included the Steele report to indicating specifically in no uncertain terms that it was not used to create the conclusions.

I provided information from the recent Doc release that proved that incorrect.

Or when the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously concluded that the Russians tried to influence the election to help Trump.

Based on corrupted Intel from Obama. No one on the Senate committee knew of the compartmented documents.

Or when the CIA tradecraft review from 2025 indicates that the conclusion of Russia wanting to elect Trump was a moderate confidence instead of high confidence. Not a fabrication but a mild difference of opinion.

They wanted to go with it until pressured by CIA. The intent was to use it.

 

[Marener]

I provided information from the recent Doc release that proved that incorrect.

Yes, the report from the House Republicans as I said (and you denied). The fact remains that even the Republicans could at best say it was "suggested" but the admit the actual document said very clearly that the Steele dossier was not used to inform any conclusions, in direct contradiction to the accusation. You've nothing to say about that fact.

Based on corrupted Intel from Obama. No one on the Senate committee knew of the compartmented documents.

I don't believe you have any way of backing up this assertion. The Senate committee interviewed the people involved. I find it pretty far fetched.

 

[popscottpopscott]

This is factually incorrect. Durham had the authority to prosecute people and did. He secured a conviction for Kevin Clinesmith and prosecuted Sussmann and Danchenko unsuccessfully.

You don't know what you're talking about.

But you see my liberal friend.... it was given to Garland.... Garland is the big chief of all laws and prosecutions... he, of all people, is the one who looks at the report and decides whether laws were broken.... even if Durham did not prosecute... Garland sure as heck could see when laws were broken and prosecute... it was Garland's job to assure any laws broken were to be prosecuted, even if Durham did not..
What overseer would watch their underlings screw up and not fix that screw up and let it slide?
"I seen laws where broken but did not overrule" never said by a responsible non-corrupt attorney general...

 

[Delldude]

You've nothing to say about that fact.

I produced info from DNI totally contradicting your claim. Quit playing your games.

The Senate committee interviewed the people involved. I find it pretty far fetched.

Why would that be when it was revealed from the DNI doc's that no one knew of the existence of that information until it was discovered by accident from someones email during the recent investigation.

Means no known existence of it when Senate did their report.

 

[Delldude]

Oh look:

December 16, 2016. Obama does an hour long interview with NPR.

The entire interview is stunning for a few reasons.

1. Almost everything Obama says is in direct contradiction to the intelligence report on the election that he had just recently received. The majority of this interview was spent discussing Russia's election interference to help Trump. We now know that Obama had just received a report informing him that did not happen.

2. It was extremely obvious throughout the entire interview that Obama was lying and that he knew the significance of what he was doing.

3. Obama finished the interview, left and returned to talk about a new "Intelligence Assessment" that would be dropping before Trump's inauguration. He was priming the media to be on the look out for the bogus report he had just asked for.

It's impossible to overstate the magnitude of what Obama was doing during this interview. And of course he turned to NPR to help him do his dirty work.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

ALL you gotta do is post some crazy bullshit about a prominent MAGA supporter politician......
And you get rewarded with 3 billion angry MAGA replies. How smart of you....and how disappointing they are
What's worse, it doesn't matter how many times you trick them. They'll fall for it 100 times in a single DAY !!

Easy to see why the Right is a lot like Rodney Dangerfield......they get No respect.

There should be ZERO replies to this thread. (Now watch the geniuses attack me)

 

[Marener]

But you see my liberal friend.... it was given to Garland.... Garland is the big chief of all laws and prosecutions... he, of all people, is the one who looks at the report and decides whether laws were broken.... even if Durham did not prosecute... Garland sure as heck could see when laws were broken and prosecute... it was Garland's job to assure any laws broken were to be prosecuted, even if Durham did not..
What overseer would watch their underlings screw up and not fix that screw up and let it slide?
"I seen laws where broken but did not overrule" never said by a responsible non-corrupt attorney general...

Durham found nothing to prosecute, so there’s nothing for Garland to do.

Your post is really weak excuse making.

 

[Delldude]

More on the issue:

Be sure to click the 'show more' at the end of each segment.

 

[Rawley]

I do. Everyone should fear a highly politicized and weaponized system of justice.

Impartial justice typically sets functioning democracies apart from authoritarian illiberal countries.

Damn, you made me spit out my drink with that jewel.

 

[Marener]

I produced info from DNI totally contradicting your claim. Quit playing your games.

The opinion of the DNI does not override the plain language on the document. She’s not being honest.

Why would that be when it was revealed from the DNI doc's that no one knew of the existence of that information until it was discovered by accident from someone’s email during the recent investigation.

Means no known existence of it when Senate did their report.

Please provide a source to this claim.

 

[popscottpopscott]

Durham found nothing to prosecute, so there’s nothing for Garland to do.

Your post is really weak excuse making.

Wrong... it would be a derelict of duty for Garland to discover a crime and not act.. whether Durham acted or not.
Garland operates under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which outlines his authority and responsibilities, including supervision of litigation and legal proceedings

28 U.S. Code Chapter 31 Part II - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Marener]

Wrong... it would be a derelict of duty for Garland to discover a crime and not act.. whether Durham acted or not.
Garland operates under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which outlines his authority and responsibilities, including supervision of litigation and legal proceedings

28 U.S. Code Chapter 31 Part II - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.law.cornell.edu

Again, there’s nothing for Garland to do because Durham did not identify additional crimes.

There’s nothing to discover. Your mind is locked into a narrative. It’s a mental prison.