Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Durham investigation into potential spying on Trump (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Maybe I missed something. Why does this matter again?
I know @JIslander has a huge man-crush on me, but I'm not sure about you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, I'll ask you what makes you think the investigation was about "getting Trump" when: 1) it was started by a Republican; 2) it was carried out and named after a Republican; 3) it was praised by many Republicans including a number that are essentially Trump sycophants; 4) inside reporting on the execution of the investigation paints a picture of Mueller jumping through hoops to not cause trouble for Trump.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”
Some say AG Garland could fire Durham and end this investigation but I dont think he will. Better they let him keep it going and strike out again. Have to laugh, Hannity's new talking point is all about the liberal jury on this trial located in the sewer in Washington. Always find someone to blame.
dkp993
Footballguy
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Firing him would stir up a political ####storm for Garland and Biden, and for what purpose? Agree that it's better for him to keep hitting dry holes until he finally gives up.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
When you have nothing to worry about, you let them keep coming up empty. Like Hillary when she sat under oath for 11 hours.
Now, compare that to the current GOP. How quickly do you think they'll stop the J6 committee next year?
If Republicans take over the House, they won't need to keep investigating the events of January 6. They already know who was responsible: BLM and antifa.
Honestly, if the current January 6 committee can't wrap things up and put out a report filled with credible evidence by this October, the committee should be dissolved for rank incompetence anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993
Footballguy
Maurile, you do realize this is the US Government we’re talking about right. Rank incompetence is the ceiling of expectations. As a projections guy you should know projecting the ceiling is risky business.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
It doesn't help when players who are supposed to be on the same "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" team, are doing everything they can to hinder the investigation while simultaneously violating their oath of office.
dozer
Footballguy
Durham faces his second trial stemming from his investigation. It is scheduled to start October 11.
The Danchenko Indictment
-
John Durham’s Igor Danchenko Case May Be More Problematic Than His Michael Sussmann Case
-Marcy Wheeler
As a reminder, the Danchenko indictment charges the former Christopher Steele source with telling five lies to the FBI in interviews in which they tried to vet the Steele dossier:
The FBI Didn’t Ask The Question About Chuck Dolan That Durham Claims They Did…
There are potentially fatal problems with the single charge built around Chuck Dolan, which Durham has used to insinuate, with no evidence, that the minor Hillary supporter was the source of the pee tape allegation.
The alleged lie Durham has accused Danchenko of, though, pertains to a more general question: whether Danchenko had “denied … that he had spoken to [Dolan] about any material” in the dossier.
It appears that Danchenko was asked whether Dolan was a source for Steele, not whether he was a source for Danchenko.
And
Durham Is Relying on a Twitter Feed He Has Already Said Makes False Claims About The Durham Investigation
Durham is relying on Sergei Millian as a witness against Danchenko. However, Durham never got testimony from Millian. Durham is relying on comments made by Millians Twitter account….
From the Danchecko Indictment: Chamber President-1 has claimed in public statements and on social media that he never responded to DANCHEKNO’s [sic] emails, and that he and DANCHENKO never met or communicated.
The Danchenko Indictment
-
John Durham’s Igor Danchenko Case May Be More Problematic Than His Michael Sussmann Case
-Marcy Wheeler
As a reminder, the Danchenko indictment charges the former Christopher Steele source with telling five lies to the FBI in interviews in which they tried to vet the Steele dossier:
- One alleged lie on June 15, 2017 about whether he had spoken with Chuck Dolan “about any material contained in the” dossier.
- Four alleged lies, told in interviews on March 16, May 18, October 24, and November 16, 2017, that he spoke to Sergei Millian in late July 2016 when Danchenko knew (variably in 2016 or in the interviews in 2017) that he had never spoken with him; one charged lie accuses Danchenko of wittingly lying about speaking to Millian more than once.
The FBI Didn’t Ask The Question About Chuck Dolan That Durham Claims They Did…
There are potentially fatal problems with the single charge built around Chuck Dolan, which Durham has used to insinuate, with no evidence, that the minor Hillary supporter was the source of the pee tape allegation.
The alleged lie Durham has accused Danchenko of, though, pertains to a more general question: whether Danchenko had “denied … that he had spoken to [Dolan] about any material” in the dossier.
It appears that Danchenko was asked whether Dolan was a source for Steele, not whether he was a source for Danchenko.
And
Durham Is Relying on a Twitter Feed He Has Already Said Makes False Claims About The Durham Investigation
Durham is relying on Sergei Millian as a witness against Danchenko. However, Durham never got testimony from Millian. Durham is relying on comments made by Millians Twitter account….
From the Danchecko Indictment: Chamber President-1 has claimed in public statements and on social media that he never responded to DANCHEKNO’s [sic] emails, and that he and DANCHENKO never met or communicated.
dozer
Footballguy
The actual FAKE (real) Dossier
-
The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective (LawfareBlog.com)
"...Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting."
"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product."
"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time..."
-
The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective (LawfareBlog.com)
"...Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting."
"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product."
"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time..."
Summary by our friend Isaac Saul:
https://www.readtangle.com/sussmann-verdict-john-durham-trump-russia/
https://www.readtangle.com/sussmann-verdict-john-durham-trump-russia/
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
You could start with something peer-reviewed, but admittedly that is not exactly easy. Still, it is well-known to not source Wikipedia.
You could instead source leftist-propaganda outlets such as CNN or MSNBC and at least they pretend to be journalists.
, it is not often that I am amused.....thank you.....
Sparky Big Time said:
Odd responses. First, citing Wikipedia is a fine practice that people should do more of. But that's beside the point because second, I wasn't citing Wikipedia as a source.
You said it's clear from what we've been shown that Sussman acted illegally. I was completely unaware of anything we've been shown that makes that clear, so I asked you what you were referring to. But I think it's lame when people ask questions that they can easily google for themselves, so to show you that I wasn't doing that, I indicated that I took the time to read the relevant Wikipedia page but didn't find an answer there.
I therefore asked whether you were referring to something that wasn't in Wikipedia. You didn't answer.
If you do want to point to evidence showing that it's clear that Sussman acted illegally, feel free to start with something peer-reviewed if you'd like.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
No, repeating will not make it true. Wikipedia is not an accepted resource at any level of academia.
Sussman did act illegally when he pretended to be voicing a concern instead of acting at the direction of Hillary Clinton, which the timeline shows.
We can pretend this did not happen, but I submit that would be unwise. Right now, the Republicans could do the same thing back to the Democrats, this is not how we want our politics to operate.
pinkham13
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yes. Id put it above things that are heavily slanted like that. American Thinker...used just recently...is that plus being untrustworthy when it comes to the "facts" it presents.
moleculo
Footballguy
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
So when this is next done to a Democrat candidate, there will be no objection, right? All this has done is legitimize political malfeasance, we should not care to whom it was done nor who did the act, we should object to the act itself.
Sadly, all the trial did was ensure a repeat.
moleculo
Footballguy
I would expect the government to present their evidence of maleficence and let a jury decide.
In general, I'm not a favor of claiming someone acted illegally AFTER they were specifically found not guilty.
Academia? We're on a message board.
Thanks for your response, but it has not been established that Sussman was acting at the direction of Hillary Clinton when he took the data to law enforcement. There was actually a whole trial about that, and Durham did not produce any evidence that contradicted Sussman's position on that point. (This point, with all the details from the trial, is discussed at length in the lawfareblog article cited earlier. Is lawfareblog an accepted resouce in academia?)
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Then we accept the same actions. I do not. What he did was wrong, and if it were replicated by a Republican or a Libertarian it would still be wrong. We should not accept this behavior.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
Posting on a message board does not relieve you of a proper backing for your opinion.
Right. I didn't express an opinion. You made a statement. I mentioned that Wikipedia didn't back your statement, so I asked if you had any other backing. So far, you haven't provided any.
moleculo
Footballguy
I'll go with the 12 jurors who directly heard all of the evidence provided by the state (as well as Sussman's legal defense) over "Sparky Big time" from a fantasy football messageboard.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
We can agree to disagree, and I do not agree with your respective opinion on this topic, but that is just fine. It's good to live in a nation where we can disagree without repercussion.
Sparky Big Time
Footballguy
No harm there. So long as the outcome fits your point of view perhaps you can feel safe. Should this behavior arise again, I would continue to object without allowing ideology to give a free pass.
moleculo
Footballguy
you may or may not note that I make no claim to ideology. I am just pointing out the simple, inarguable fact that Sussman was charged for the same thing you claim was clearly illegal, and cleared by a jury of 12.
Now, I'm not sitting here and saying a jury always got it right. I mean, I think OJ did it. But, I don't understand why you think all 12 jurists, who saw the case first hand, were wrong.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
I dunno, I find this whole theory that it was actually Jason Simpson (with OJ covering it up) pretty fascinating.
Dickies
Footballguy
I hadn't read much about the Sussmann trial, but this did a good job laying out the charges and the whole process. Good read.
Dickies
Footballguy
Let me get this straight.
We have Sparky Big Time from the internet claiming Sussmann clearly broke the law. He rejects any articles/websites showing that at the very least it wasn't so clear that he broke the law, and views the fact that a jury of 12 acquitted him as proof of some bigger conspiracy theory. When tasked with providing why he thinks the way he does, deflects that everyone besides him is living in their own echo chamber.
The Sussmann trial and Sparky Big Time do have something in common. As the jury forewoman put it, "I feel like we could have spent our time more wisely."
We have Sparky Big Time from the internet claiming Sussmann clearly broke the law. He rejects any articles/websites showing that at the very least it wasn't so clear that he broke the law, and views the fact that a jury of 12 acquitted him as proof of some bigger conspiracy theory. When tasked with providing why he thinks the way he does, deflects that everyone besides him is living in their own echo chamber.
The Sussmann trial and Sparky Big Time do have something in common. As the jury forewoman put it, "I feel like we could have spent our time more wisely."
dozer
Footballguy
How it started:
“Trump Says Russia Inquiry’s Overreach Is a Scandal Bigger Than Watergate.”
How it’s going:
“Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires.”
“Trump Says Russia Inquiry’s Overreach Is a Scandal Bigger Than Watergate.”
How it’s going:
“Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires.”
The Commish
Footballguy
This is pretty much why I want the investigation into Biden and his son to be on TV. It's unfortunate that this Durham "investigation" went away as it did. People need to see what's going on and what the results are.
massraider
Footballguy
Turns out, it there was no 'victim'
Amused to Death
Footballguy
So what was the final tally, Russia investigation 37 convictions, Durham 0 ?
sho nuff
Footballguy
And this one took longer than Mueller correct?
I expect all those who claimed Mueller wasted taxpayer money (he didn't) are certainly going to claim Durham wasted money, right?
massraider
Footballguy
Think I read $40-million. Not sure tho
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Mueller investigation ran from May 2017 thru March 2019 - 37 convictions in 22 months
Durham investigation ran from April 2019 to September 2022 - 0 convictions in 41 months
Which one was a waste of resources and tax payer money? Just like all of those Benghazi investigations.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
From the NY Times:
Barr seems to have legitimately thought that Trump was unfairly targeted in 2016. He probably still does. He put Durham in place to prove the case. Durham didn’t. But Durham did accomplish one thing that is very important to Trump: He generated a lot of things that could become Fox News headlines in which anecdotes became indictments of the system.
In that sense, Durham was very successful indeed.
Barr seems to have legitimately thought that Trump was unfairly targeted in 2016. He probably still does. He put Durham in place to prove the case. Durham didn’t. But Durham did accomplish one thing that is very important to Trump: He generated a lot of things that could become Fox News headlines in which anecdotes became indictments of the system.
In that sense, Durham was very successful indeed.
The General
Footballguy
I believe the term is nothingburger with a side of magatears.
dozer
Footballguy
“He’s Going to Deliver. He’s Unraveling BIGGEST Political Scandal in US History” – KASH PATEL DROPS BOMBS –
This must be a tremendous relief to learn that there really wasn’t much to this whole Durham investigation.
Similar threads
