Durham report: Nothingburger with cheese.

[Dawg]

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.

Always your Trump WHATABOUTISM
Your post prove you're a Lonely lil' guy
Since you ALWAYS post the Truth do post my post of saying you didn't work in IT___
I said something bad happened to you below deck, evidently and you couldn't have been below deck if not in the Navy
Well, if the picture you posted of YOU is true, you damn sure are Short & Bald, of course with you in IT, it's probably a picture of someone else posted that should sue you!
now after over a decade you post you have "two black brothers" so what race are you, really?

 

[Dawg]

I have to admit skipping some sections...like applicable laws and most footnotes.

I found the most useful parts to be the executive summaries of all three.

He knew you lied and you proved him correct
BTW: at first I thought your title line was todays Special at ya boys eatery

 

[Zam-Zam]

I have to admit skipping some sections...like applicable laws and most footnotes.

I found the most useful parts to be the executive summaries of all three.

That's what I have done as well.

I managed to find all sorts of facts in both Mueller and Durham reports. As just one example of the latter, if you peruse the section on "Bias and improper motivation" (starting on page 303), you'll find as I did it is chock-full of facts pertaining to Crossfire Hurricane, amongst other things.

It's pretty hard to miss.

 

[middleview]

Always your Trump WHATABOUTISM
Your post prove you're a Lonely lil' guy
Since you ALWAYS post the Truth do post my post of saying you didn't work in IT___
I said something bad happened to you below deck, evidently and you couldn't have been below deck if not in the Navy
Well, if the picture you posted of YOU is true, you damn sure are Short & Bald, of course with you in IT, it's probably a picture of someone else posted that should sue you!
now after over a decade you post you have "two black brothers" so what race are you, really?

Run along, Dawg. I'm not the topic.

 

[middleview]

That's what I have done as well.

I managed to find all sorts of facts in both Mueller and Durham reports. As just one example of the latter, if you peruse the section on "Bias and improper motivation" (starting on page 303), you'll find as I did it is chock-full of facts pertaining to Crossfire Hurricane, amongst other things.

It's pretty hard to miss.

It is Durham's conclusions that aren't connected to facts. He stated dates and times, sources of info....He also stated that the FBI should have investigated the Clinton campaign for having a strategy of connecting Trump to the DNC hack. That is the logic behind claiming the FBI handled the Trump/Russian issue was different than how they dealt with the Clinton campaign. The fact is that there was no crime involved in that campaign strategy.

That is an opinion that is not based in law. If it were then the FBI should have investigated the Hunter Laptop attempt at an October surprise as election interference.

Unlike the FBI's opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information

Durham report...page 20.

 

[Dawg]

Run along, Dawg. I'm not the topic.

You ask the question of you lil' fella

 

[Zam-Zam]

It is Durham's conclusions that aren't connected to facts.

That's your opinion.

 

[middleview]

That's your opinion.

Yup. As I said previously, if you'd been paying attention. As it is your opinion that he has proven something useful.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Yup. As I said previously, if you'd been paying attention. As it is your opinion that he has proven something useful.

What you actually said was this:

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....


Nothing in there indicates that you are merely stating an opinion. The Durham report concludes the opposite of what you assert.

See? I was paying attention.

 

[middleview]

Nope. I'm offering both as opinions. You either accept that Mueller adding 'does not exonerate' is his opinion ....since there wasn't a criminal trial .or not. And I can accept that, and also that durham offered his opinion on the political motivations of the FBI, etc.. because..we actually read those texts early on and watched the crazed go berserk for two years

both yielded fodder for their party.

Mueller is a republican...and his report was detailed an honest...which is why he didn't pretend to have evidence to prosecute Trump or any member of the campaign for collusion/conspiracy.

Durham pretends to have convincing evidence of the FBI doing something wrong. He didn't. He mentions Sussman about 300 times, but never says that Sussman was acquitted. He implies that the FBI should have investigated the Clinton campaign for using opposition research to attempt to link Trump to the Russian actions. Oddly enough, later in his summary, he admits there is nothing illegal about doing that.

 

[middleview]

What you actually said was this:

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....


Nothing in there indicates that you are merely stating an opinion. The Durham report concludes the opposite of what you assert.

See? I was paying attention.

Wow....So where in the report is there a conclusion that reads there were criminal acts or politicization of the FBI? Clearly those were not part of his summary....right? For the Durham conclusions to be the opposite of what I've posted...you should be able to find that somewhere in those 300 pages....with facts to back it up and not just his opinion.

He does try to smear the FBI by saying they treated information about the possibility of a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign differently from how they treated the Clinton campaign tactic of attempting to link Trump to the Russian actions.

The Russians broke the law. It stands to reason the FBI would investigate that and whether or not the Trump campaign encouraged or coordinated with the Russians.

There was nothing to investigate with regard to Clinton's plan.

Sorry you don't seem to see the difference.

PS....if you are referring to the lawyer who deleted a line from an email as committing a criminal act...wow...that is a reach.

 

[middleview]

What you actually said was this:

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....


Nothing in there indicates that you are merely stating an opinion. The Durham report concludes the opposite of what you assert.

See? I was paying attention.

By the way...you wrote this:

Nothing in there indicates that you are merely stating an opinion. The Durham report concludes the opposite of what you assert.

Without saying it is your opinion....catch my drift?

 

[middleview]

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.

Actually...Trump commuted his sentence before he served a day in jail.

 

[PhilFish]

Mueller is a republican...and his report was detailed an honest...which is why he didn't pretend to have evidence to prosecute Trump or any member of the campaign for collusion/conspiracy.

Durham pretends to have convincing evidence of the FBI doing something wrong. He didn't. He mentions Sussman about 300 times, but never says that Sussman was acquitted. He implies that the FBI should have investigated the Clinton campaign for using opposition research to attempt to link Trump to the Russian actions. Oddly enough, later in his summary, he admits there is nothing illegal about doing that.

didnt pretend? he said 'does not exonerate' that is pretending.

oddly enough there was nothing illegal about speaking to russians. yet....

 

[middleview]

didnt pretend? he said 'does not exonerate' that is pretending.

oddly enough there was nothing illegal about speaking to russians. yet....

The crime was not in talking to Russians. It was the number of contacts (over a hundred) at a time that the Russians were breaking the law to tip the election to Trump.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Wow....So where in the report is there a conclusion that reads there were criminal acts or politicization of the FBI? Clearly those were not part of his summary....right? For the Durham conclusions to be the opposite of what I've posted...you should be able to find that somewhere in those 300 pages....with facts to back it up and not just his opinion.

He does try to smear the FBI by saying they treated information about the possibility of a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign differently from how they treated the Clinton campaign tactic of attempting to link Trump to the Russian actions.

The Russians broke the law. It stands to reason the FBI would investigate that and whether or not the Trump campaign encouraged or coordinated with the Russians.

There was nothing to investigate with regard to Clinton's plan.

Sorry you don't seem to see the difference.

PS....if you are referring to the lawyer who deleted a line from an email as committing a criminal act...wow...that is a reach.

What I do know is exactly what you posted, word for word.

And how it differs from actual reality.

It's good to have these things documented, no?

 

[Zam-Zam]

By the way...you wrote this:

Nothing in there indicates that you are merely stating an opinion. The Durham report concludes the opposite of what you assert.

Without saying it is your opinion....catch my drift?

No, I don't.

Your header indicates you are discussing the Durham Report. You then go on to misrepresent what it actually says. That is documented. By you, in fact.

Fortunately, the record has since been set straight.

 

[PhilFish]

The crime was not in talking to Russians. It was the number of contacts (over a hundred) at a time that the Russians were breaking the law to tip the election to Trump.

i understood that. you said it...the russians were breaking the law. again....mueller: trump did not conspire

 

[middleview]

What I do know is exactly what you posted, word for word.

And how it differs from actual reality.

It's good to have these things documented, no?

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.

 

[middleview]

i understood that. you said it...the russians were breaking the law. again....mueller: trump did not conspire

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?