Durham report faults FBI..

[Dawg]

There were many indictments and convictions.

On Trump?

 

[Zam-Zam]

What we've established is that you think anyone who disagrees with you is irrational.

I understand you see things differently. You don't seem to accept that I do.

No. Just you, and just on this subject.

Your premise is false.

 

[middleview]

No. Just you, and just on this subject.

Your premise is false.

So I am irrational in disagreeing with you on this subject? Really?

My opinion is that Durham simply expressed opinions on the investigations into Russian activities and whether or not the FBI should have also been investigating members of the Trump campaign.

Again...the facts do not support his opinions. He equates the Clinton campaign plan to link Trump to Putin and the Russian interference in the election to the possibility that Trump campaign people in any way encouraged the Russian criminal acts.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[middleview]

On Trump?

So why NO indictments?

I answered your question.

 

[Zam-Zam]

So I am irrational in disagreeing with you on this subject? Really?

My opinion is that Durham simply expressed opinions on the investigations into Russian activities and whether or not the FBI should have also been investigating members of the Trump campaign.

Again...the facts do not support his opinions. He equates the Clinton campaign plan to link Trump to Putin and the Russian interference in the election to the possibility that Trump campaign people in any way encouraged the Russian criminal acts.

That makes no sense at all.

You're too emotional on anything related to Trump. You're not objective, not open to re-evaluating your position or new information, not tolerant of any dissenting viewpoints.

You hate Trump. The end, there is no more.

 

[middleview]

You're too emotional on anything related to Trump. You're not objective, not open to re-evaluating your position or new information, not tolerant of any dissenting viewpoints.

You hate Trump. The end, there is no more.

You have a way to sense emotions from a text message? No kidding. "Not objective"? I am entirely objective. You think you are capable or re-evaluating your position? I disagree. You have failed to present a credible argument for me to agree with you.
Durham has completely failed to prove any criminal act. His only proof of bias is Strzok's messages about how much he disliked Trump.

What do you think indicates I do not tolerate your viewpoint? I disagree and have posted the reasons why. You have disagreed with my opinions...somehow my disagreement with you gets intolerant responses from you.

 

[Zam-Zam]

You have a way to sense emotions from a text message? No kidding. "Not objective"? I am entirely objective. You think you are capable or re-evaluating your position? I disagree. You have failed to present a credible argument for me to agree with you.
Durham has completely failed to prove any criminal act. His only proof of bias is Strzok's messages about how much he disliked Trump.

What do you think indicates I do not tolerate your viewpoint? I disagree and have posted the reasons why. You have disagreed with my opinions...somehow my disagreement with you gets intolerant responses from you.

From your history on the subject.

You have started many a Trump thread.

You have joined most if not all Trump threads.

You have tried, more than once, to threadjack threads not about Trump in order to discuss Trump.

There must be a reason.

 

[middleview]

From your history on the subject.

You have started many a Trump thread.

You have joined most if not all Trump threads.

You have tried, more than once, to threadjack threads not about Trump in order to discuss Trump.

There must be a reason.

Yes, he was president for four years, impeached twice, subject to numerous lawsuits and criminal investigations and is running again.

When someone says Biden is the worst president ever, posting about Trump is appropriate. When someone posts that Biden is a crook, it is appropriate to point out a truly corrupt comparison. When someone blames Biden for the chaos of Afghanistan, posting about Trump's surrender to the Taliban and nearly complete withdrawal of our troops, it is not a thread jack.

Every thread where I've brought Trump in was related, closely, to the allegation of an anti-Biden post.

None of your post actually answers my post. In fact, you threadjacked this thread by attempting to make it about me, instead of about Durham's report.

Your post. Was this on topic or did you derail the thread?

it's why I have also pointed out factual inaccuracies in your posts.

It's all good.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Yes, he was president for four years, impeached twice, subject to numerous lawsuits and criminal investigations and is running again.

When someone says Biden is the worst president ever, posting about Trump is appropriate. When someone posts that Biden is a crook, it is appropriate to point out a truly corrupt comparison. When someone blames Biden for the chaos of Afghanistan, posting about Trump's surrender to the Taliban and nearly complete withdrawal of our troops, it is not a thread jack.

Every thread where I've brought Trump in was related, closely, to the allegation of an anti-Biden post.

None of your post actually answers my post. In fact, you threadjacked this thread by attempting to make it about me, instead of about Durham's report.

Your post. Was this on topic or did you derail the thread?

it's why I have also pointed out factual inaccuracies in your posts.

It's all good.

My first post was in reply to another posters. Subsequent posts were in reply to your posts to me. You initiated this exchange.

As for your obsession with all things Trump. I believe your last point has proved my point on that score. And since I'm not emotional on this topic, I don't even need to bold anything.

Yes - It's all good. Wonderful, in fact. Have a pleasant evening.

 

[middleview]

My first post was in reply to another posters. Subsequent posts were in reply to your posts to me. You initiated this exchange.

As for your obsession with all things Trump. I believe your last point has proved my point on that score. And since I'm not emotional on this topic, I don't even need to bold anything.

Yes - It's all good. Wonderful, in fact. Have a pleasant evening.

My post was on topic. Yours was about me.

 

[Zam-Zam]

My post was on topic. Yours was about me.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The Durham Report doesn't really tell us a lot that is new...That the FBI had an agenda, that the investigation into Trump was politically motivated, and that it was specious at best.

I don't doubt that Trump is guilty of a lot of things, but so are many of those who were behind the investigation into him. Which would explain why they fell flat on their face.

It's all rather comical.

It would be funny, if it didn't indicate the end of the American Dream...

 

[Raoul_Luke]

1. The IG already reported that the Crossfire investigation was well justified. Durham disagrees. So what?
2. Not only did Durham fail to find anything new...he failed to find facts to back up his opinions.
3. So Trump is guilty of a lot of things, but so what...cuz others did the same things? Wow...the logic is impressive.
Who else held up a congressional appropriation to an ally in violation of the legislation that required he notify Congress two weeks in advance of doing it?
Who else has admitted taking boxes of government documents and claimed they were his to keep or that he could declassify documents by thinking it was so?
When has an elected politician called his supporters to stop an electoral process?

Trump is in a category all by himself. His bribe to keep a porn star quiet or having his pal at the National Enquirer buy another scandalous story to keep it quiet is pretty unique. His tax problems and his loss of a rape defamation trial are in a class alone.

No...you cannot excuse his lack of a moral compass by saying that others don't have one either.

The IG is a political hack, not a prosecutor.
He factually found that the FBI used a different standard for Trump v. Clinton.
Whatever
Good grief! Give it a rest - it was not a big deal.
Apparently everyone
Never (including Trump)
Yet he is still walking around free as a bird...

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Do you have evidence the US hacked Russian election systems?

Are you suggesting the US doesn't spy on Russia? That is patently absurd.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

They hacked the DNC and every credible and knowledgable source says they delivered the email to Assange. The best you have is...not much.

By "every credible and knowledgeable source" you mean the US government. Because the only source that knows for sure is Assange and he says it wasn't the Russians. And the only forensic agency with access to the server said they could find no evidence the files had been exfiltrated. You think we should take the feds' word for it. Right, it's not like they ever lied to us before, am I right?

 

[middleview]

The IG is a political hack, not a prosecutor.
He factually found that the FBI used a different standard for Trump v. Clinton.
Whatever
Good grief! Give it a rest - it was not a big deal.
Apparently everyone
Never (including Trump)
Yet he is still walking around free as a bird...

The FBI used a different standard because there was a crime involved in the hack of the DNC and release of those emails by Wiki.

What crime was evident it anything the Clinton campaign did?

I agree...the Durham report was not a big deal. That is why I keep replying to those on the right who think it was.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Even if they did not deliver email to Assange...they broke the law.

Meanwhile...Trump said it was probably the Russians. The senate intel committee said it was the Russians.

Who says it wasn't? Putin and Assange...

And Crowdstrike - you know, the only ones who actually had access to the server. Yes, they "broke the (US) law." I suppose you are here to tell us the US has never ever ever broken the laws of any foreign nation. You are a joke! Hell, they even break the laws of our ALLIES! Sheesh!

 

[middleview]

By "every credible and knowledgeable source" you mean the US government. Because the only source that knows for sure is Assange and he says it wasn't the Russians. And the only forensic agency with access to the server said they could find no evidence the files had been exfiltrated. You think we should take the feds' word for it. Right, it's not like they ever lied to us before, am I right?

Crowdstrike said the evidence that the Russians had hacked the DNC was irrefutable.
You seem to hang your hat on agreeing that the Russians probably extracted the email and prepared a .ZIP file or some other compressed file, but there is no evidence they copied the file from the DNC. Really?

Donald Trump said it was probably the Russians.

In the absence of any other explanation for how the email got to Assange...yes, I think the Russians did it. How many Russians were subject to indictment by Mueller?

There are others who know....the person who brought a thumb drive to Assange knows.
Do I trust Assange? Hell no. As I said before...if he admitted the Russian GRU was his source he'd be done as an independent source of info. You do know that Mueller got indictments for 12 Russian GRU officers, right? I know it is unlikely that they will ever be in US custody, but the point is that enough evidence went to the Grand Jury that they issued indictments.

Mueller Investigation: All of the Guilty Pleas, Indictments | Time

And here is the indictment doc.

Indictment (justice.gov)

 

[middleview]

And Crowdstrike - you know, the only ones who actually had access to the server. Yes, they "broke the (US) law." I suppose you are here to tell us the US has never ever ever broken the laws of any foreign nation. You are a joke! Hell, they even break the laws of our ALLIES! Sheesh!

So you have no evidence we hacked systems in Russia hoping to interfere in their elections. Is it your opinion that if the US did break Russian laws that it makes their crime a non-event?

Again...here is the indictment of Russian military officers who participated in the hack of the DNC and an explanation of how they did it.

Indictment (justice.gov)

Your excuses for the Russian effort are the joke...we caught them breaking US law. If any US citizens are caught doing the same thing in another country do you think they would go with your excuses?

 

[Sickofleft]

Then you called Strzok and McCabe “dirty FBI agents”…..And refuse to back it up….Oh what a tangled web we weave…

McCabe and Strzok openly talked about stopping Trump, an insurance policy.

You must have missed the part about Strzok arranging to have Gen Flynn's life destroyed by re-writing his interview report.

And McCabe who testified that absent the Steele report they would have never been able to get the FISA warrants on Page which they used to backdoor themselves into spying on Trumps campaign.....they LIED to the FISA court to get those warrants and kept lying to get them renewed....

Ohhh ya know never mind, you are ok with that level of corruption because it works for the Fascist scumbags you lie for every day......

Got it.