New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Durham report: Nothingburger with cheese.

BlueHeel

Council Member
So why is it you misquote me?

I wrote this:

Did you read it? Did you read the senate intel report? Both had facts related to things like the number of social media posts intending to help Trump Vs Clinton...as well as info on the Russian hack of the DNC. Were there opinions? Yes. Were crimes documented? Yes. Any indictments? Yes.

Durham? Not so much.

You interpreted that as this:

So you've read both reports in their entirety, and your conclusion one is fact-filled, while the other is merely an opinion piece.
Zam is basing his entire argument on the opinion of a CNN reporter that covers the Pentagon, State Dept, and sometimes the WH. Notice this "reporter" does not cover the DOJ.
It's like the very partisan polls Zam likes to post. Not his opinions, just the slanted polls.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
So why is it you misquote me?

I wrote this:

Did you read it? Did you read the senate intel report? Both had facts related to things like the number of social media posts intending to help Trump Vs Clinton...as well as info on the Russian hack of the DNC. Were there opinions? Yes. Were crimes documented? Yes. Any indictments? Yes.

Durham? Not so much.

You interpreted that as this:

So you've read both reports in their entirety, and your conclusion one is fact-filled, while the other is merely an opinion piece.
I was trying to clarify your position - If you quote me in its entirety (which you did not of course) you will note it is in the form of a question.

Context matters.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I was trying to clarify your position - If you quote me in its entirety (which you did not of course) you will note it is in the form of a question.

Context matters.
Hilarious..you misquoted me and your question "is that correct?" Makes it OK.

No. It is not correct, because it is a misquote.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
The fact is, your post was nowhere near what I wrote...

No. You were not correct.
The fact is, it was not a quote.

And unless you legitimately don't understand what a quote is, you know what you are whining about is entirely false.

It's all good. :)
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Zam is basing his entire argument on the opinion of a CNN reporter that covers the Pentagon, State Dept, and sometimes the WH. Notice this "reporter" does not cover the DOJ.
It's like the very partisan polls Zam likes to post. Not his opinions, just the slanted polls.
False premise. You can cite any number of news articles that accurately represent what was in the Durham report - I simply chose CNN because it is generally more acceptable to folks on the left.

To prove that point, here is a similar article from ABC News:


Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI - ABC News (go.com)


Note also that I am neither arguing for or against what is in the report, people can decide that for themselves. My salient point is that what is in it by all reputable accounts is not what is asserted in this thread's top post.

Those are the facts of the matter.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The fact is, it was not a quote.

And unless you legitimately don't understand what a quote is, you know what you are whining about is entirely false.

It's all good. :)
Splitting hairs doesn't make you less dishonest. Your post completely mischaracterized what I wrote. Why do that?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
False premise. You can cite any number of news articles that accurately represent what was in the Durham report - I simply chose CNN because it is generally more acceptable to folks on the left.

To prove that point, here is a similar article from ABC News:


Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI - ABC News (go.com)


Note also that I am neither arguing for or against what is in the report, people can decide that for themselves. My salient point is that what is in it by all reputable accounts is not what is asserted in this thread's top post.

Those are the facts of the matter.
In Durham's opinion...the investigation was seriously flawed.

Nothing in his report proved corruption or that any crime had been committed by anyone in the FBI. Nothing in his report proved the investigation should not have happened.

Reread the top post.
 
Last edited:

Zam-Zam

Senator
In Durham's opinion...the investigation was seriously flawed.

Nothing in his report proved corruption or that any crime had been committed by anyone in the FBI. Nothing in his report proved the investigation should not have happened.

Reread the top post.
Top post, verbatim:

So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.

No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....



That is not anywhere close to a correct characterization of what is contained in the Durham Report.

It remains a false representation.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
In Durham's feeble attempt to justify spending a few million bucks is to call negative info one campaign puts out by another as Election Meddling.

The alleged scheme, dubbed the “Clinton Plan,” showed that the Clinton campaign “had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal” against Trump “by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” the Durham report reads.

So, of course....the Trump plan for an October surprise by taking the Hunter Laptop to the NYPost would be election meddling...right?

You think I'm lonely? You also think I didn't work in IT, was never in the Navy, that I'm short...just a few of the idiotic trolling attempts you've made.
Yes, because "obviously" making something up from whole cloth is exactly the same thing as providing factual information...sheesh!
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Nope...not enough evidence to prosecute is not the same as "didn't conspire".

How would we have known if there had not been an investigation?
Yet here you are suggesting that Durham's "not enough evidence" IS the same as "disn't conspire."
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yet here you are suggesting that Durham's "not enough evidence" IS the same as "disn't conspire."
Where did Durham say not enough evidence?
Even though his report did not say that, you'll notice he has NO evidence to use to prosecute...
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Top post, verbatim:

So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.

No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....



That is not anywhere close to a correct characterization of what is contained in the Durham Report.

It remains a false representation.
Where is the politization of the FBI proven in his report?

What crimes are proven by anything in the report?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Top post, verbatim:

So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.

No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....



That is not anywhere close to a correct characterization of what is contained in the Durham Report.

It remains a false representation.
Nope....the fact that there are no crimes mentioned in his report and no link to any political motivation is all I needed to make that judgement...your failure to quote any part of his report to prove me wrong is all over this thread.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Where is the politization of the FBI proven in his report?

What crimes are proven by anything in the report?
I have no desire to convince you of anything concerning the report. Your opinion of it is as insignificant to me as mine is to you.

If you misrepresent what is in it, however, I will set the record straight. You can count on it.

You can make peace with that or let it bother you for the rest of your earthly existence, that's totally up to you.

It's all good.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I have no desire to convince you of anything concerning the report. Your opinion of it is as insignificant to me as mine is to you.

If you misrepresent what is in it, however, I will set the record straight. You can count on it.

You can make peace with that or let it bother you for the rest of your earthly existence, that's totally up to you.

It's all good.
You keep trying to discredit the opinion I expressed in the top post. You could do that by showing the evidence you think is in the report. You can't. It isn't there.

That is the bottom line.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The lil' fella will do all possible to cover this up as well
FBI Sabotaged THREE Investigations into Clinton Foundation, According to Conservative Investigator (msn.com)

Factual Information is on the wide screen
Yeah, he's still searching for that "evidence" of political bias in the Durham report:

 
Top