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

Durham report: Nothingburger with cheese.

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
To my recollection the Congressional report showed a very small number of accounts posting any kind of pro-Clinton or anti-Trump messages compare to a very large number that looked to help Trump.

Mueller did not find that there was no conspiracy. He found there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute.

In Durham's report he focused on his opinions. Mueller focused on facts.
Any event, yes you are correct there were a number of accounts favoring Clinton, some were anti-trump, many were for trump. Each warranting investigation no? If not why not, are we into investigating Russian meddling, or are we only into investigating Russian meddling from one aspect only?

And no, Mueller actually made a specific or explicit pronouncement in that he did not find that Trump nor anyone in his campaign actively conspired with russia.
Then he added his opinion which was that it does not exonerate trump. Exoneration would have come in the form of a trial with a verdict, yes or no? Or are trials now currently conducted only on the basis of opinion?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Any event, yes you are correct there were a number of accounts favoring Clinton, some were anti-trump, many were for trump. Each warranting investigation no? If not why not, are we into investigating Russian meddling, or are we only into investigating Russian meddling from one aspect only?

And no, Mueller actually made a specific or explicit pronouncement in that he did not find that Trump nor anyone in his campaign actively conspired with russia.
Then he added his opinion which was that it does not exonerate trump. Exoneration would have come in the form of a trial with a verdict, yes or no? Or are trials now currently conducted only on the basis of opinion?
Quotes from the Mueller report:
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.


Note that it didn't say there is no evidence...but that it was not enough to prosecute.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Quotes from the Mueller report:
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.


Note that it didn't say there is no evidence...but that it was not enough to prosecute.
yes, thats correct. not sufficient can mean a whole lot of things, which is the point.

it could mean....veriy little evidence. it could mean there is evidence of russian activity...which had nothing to do with trump. it could mean there was evidence that some had to do with hillary... no one knows...so the presumption is simply that...presumption. and a word smithing that reaped maximum political impact .... but was "not sufficient to support criminal charges"
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
No, you did not say that.

You said this:

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


Now the record has been set straight.
Where did the report offer a conclusion that there was any criminal act? Where did it say the FBI was politicized?

Since the report did not show evidence of that...I conclude that there was none.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I do not know how accurate Durham's report is or isn't. If I claimed to know that with certainty, I would be a liar.

The same, of course, is true for you.

At least one of us can admit it.
We are talking about Durham's opinions. He is entitled to what ever opinion he wants. So are you and I. I contest whether or not he has presented facts.

How would we establish an opinion is accurate?
 
Last edited:

Jack4freedom

Governor
Any event, yes you are correct there were a number of accounts favoring Clinton, some were anti-trump, many were for trump. Each warranting investigation no? If not why not, are we into investigating Russian meddling, or are we only into investigating Russian meddling from one aspect only?

And no, Mueller actually made a specific or explicit pronouncement in that he did not find that Trump nor anyone in his campaign actively conspired with russia.
Then he added his opinion which was that it does not exonerate trump. Exoneration would have come in the form of a trial with a verdict, yes or no? Or are trials now currently conducted only on the basis of opinion?
Read the transcripts of Roger Stone trial….
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I am being honest. It is not possible from our perspective to know with certainty whether Durham's conclusions are entirely accurate or not. We rely solely on media reports and commentary from potentially biased individuals. You and I don't know, simply because we can't.

We can have opinions and feelings, but nothing more.

Since your feelings are strong and emotional, and since you can't accept the possibility that you're not 100% right, you'll insist everyone agree with you. They won't all of course, and for me that is perfectly acceptable. In turn I have no desire to convince everyone (or anyone) of my opinion.

Facts are important, opinions less so. Perhaps we can at least agree on that.

It's all good.
Yes we can...so Durham's opinion is less important since he presented no facts...thank you.
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
yes, thats correct. not sufficient can mean a whole lot of things, which is the point.

it could mean....veriy little evidence. it could mean there is evidence of russian activity...which had nothing to do with trump. it could mean there was evidence that some had to do with hillary... no one knows...so the presumption is simply that...presumption. and a word smithing that reaped maximum political impact .... but was "not sufficient to support criminal charges"
Kind of the same thing Comey did to Hillary 6 months before the 2016 election and then after stating unequivocally that the investigation was closed, he reopened it about a week before the election (October Surprise!) and virtually handed the election to TRUMP. If anyone has a real beef about FBI misconduct regarding election interference, it’s Hillary, not Donny.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Kind of the same thing Comey did to Hillary 6 months before the 2016 election and then after stating unequivocally that the investigation was closed, he reopened it about a week before the election (October Surprise!) and virtually handed the election to TRUMP. If anyone has a real beef about FBI misconduct regarding election interference, it’s Hillary, not Donny.
If anyone doubts the impact of Comey's announcement of the resumption of the investigation days before the election just look at the polls. She was ahead until that moment and then it was within the margin of error.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Kind of the same thing Comey did to Hillary 6 months before the 2016 election and then after stating unequivocally that the investigation was closed, he reopened it about a week before the election (October Surprise!) and virtually handed the election to TRUMP. If anyone has a real beef about FBI misconduct regarding election interference, it’s Hillary, not Donny.
Yes. And?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Conviction of close Trump associate that worked with Wikileaks and Russian Intel assets to steal and strategically release said stolen documents in order to help Trump win the election. Interesting stuff.
Yes that's correct. Stone went to jail for obstruction of justice. Other Trump associates went to jail for lying to Congress or tax or bank fraud. Which of these convictions has resulted in Trump being convicted and imprisoned? Answer, none.
 

Jack4freedom

Governor
Yes that's correct. Stone went to jail for obstruction of justice. Other Trump associates went to jail for lying to Congress or tax or bank fraud. Which of these convictions has resulted in Trump being convicted and imprisoned? Answer, none.
Not yet, but it’s in the works
 

Spamature

President
Not exactly.

Per CNN, this is what the reports findings:

Takeaways from special counsel John Durham’s report on FBI’s Russia-Trump probe


Durham finds FBI rushed to investigate Trump


Claims FBI had no real evidence of collusion before launching probe

Claims of FBI personnel bias

Durham claims FBI had different standards for Trump and Clinton

FBI failed to corroborate Steele dossier allegations




Complete text: Takeaways from special counsel John Durham's report on FBI's Russia-Trump probe | CNN Politics



You can agree or disagree with what is in the report, it will not matter to me. Your claim that there was "no politicization of the FBI", however, is contrary to the claims made in the report - They conclude the opposite, at least according to CNN.

It is important to be accurate about these things...Spreading false or misleading information helps no one.
If there was no politicalization of the FBI then why did we not hear from them about the Trump investigation before the election ? All Hillary for years, yet not a peep about the fact that Trump was also under investigation for his campaign ties to Russia ?

All out public attacks on one side right up until days before the election, versus total silence about the other side's worrying contacts and interactions with a nation that was actively conducting cyber warfare against the American people, seems as about as political as you can get when it comes to the FBI.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
If there was no politicalization of the FBI then why did we not hear from them about the Trump investigation before the election ? All Hillary for years, yet not a peep about the fact that Trump was also under investigation for his campaign ties to Russia ?

All out public attacks on one side right up until days before the election, versus total silence about the other side's worrying contacts and interactions with a nation that was actively conducting cyber warfare against the American people, seems as about as political as you can get when it comes to the FBI.
I am not arguing for or against the Durham report - I believe people can decide for themselves how accurate or inaccurate may be.

I am telling you, per CNN, what it said. I have zero interest in influencing your, or anyone else's, opinion of it.

Just the facts, no spin.
 
Top