First bombshell in the Sussman trial

[Bob78164]

Byron York writes:

Why should I believe him when the jurors who gave up weeks of their lives listening to the evidence reached a different conclusion? Why shouldn't I believe the jurors who heard all of the evidence and issued an acquittal in short order? --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Byron York writes:

Why should I believe him when the jurors who gave up weeks of their lives listening to the evidence reached a different conclusion? Why shouldn't I believe the jurors who heard all of the evidence and issued an acquittal in short order? --Bob

Regardless of whether one believes Sussman did or didn't lie to the FBI, the case against him was exceptionally weak. It was based almost exclusively on the testimony of one FBI agent based on his recollection several years after the fact of what Sussman told him in an interview. There are no written statements from Sussman denying he was working for the Clinton campaign or the DNC. As I said, earlier in this thread:

Of course, this is all collateral to the main issue, which is whether Sussman lied to the FBI by claiming he wasn't working for the Clinton campaign when he delivered this information. And already, the government's case is proving very weak in that regard. It's based almost exclusively on FBI General Counsel James Baker's recollection of a 2016 meeting with Sussman. Baker since that time made a number of inconsistent statements about how Sussman referred to his clients and that he claims he never took notes of or memorialized that meeting with Sussman.

No sensible prosecutor would have brought such a weak case. But Durham is desperate because his three year investigation has uncovered nothing new. The only person to cop a plea admitted a violation before Durham even began his investigation.

[silverscreenselect]

Chalk up another loss for John Durham in his investigation of the so-called Steele dossier. Igor Danchenko, a Russian ex-pat who was the primary source for much of the information in the dossier, was acquitted by a federal jury on four counts of lying to the FBI in regard to the investigation. Durham himself examined most of the witnesses at the trial and gave most of the arguments. Durham wound up arguing with some of his own witnesses when they gave testimony favorable to the defense. So this investigation is, as expected, turning into another giant nothing-burger for those looking to cast dirt on the FBI.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/18/politics ... index.html

[kroxquo]

And the final word from the Durham investigation -

There was nothing there worth investigating

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

[tlynn78]

And the final word from the Durham investigation -

There was nothing there worth investigating

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

[Bob Juch]

And the final word from the Durham investigation -

There was nothing there worth investigating

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Durham Finds Fault With F.B.I. Over Russia Inquiry

The special counsel’s final report nevertheless did not produce blockbuster revelations of politically motivated misconduct, as Donald J. Trump and his allies had suggested it would.

This is a link to a free copy of this New York Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/p ... =url-share

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand deeper now.

There are lots of people who SHOULD be prosecuted, but I think Durham has figured out that it's a waste of time to prosecute anyone in the current arena.

One thing he has confirmed: Trump was right once again.

[tlynn78]

Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand deeper now.

There are lots of people who SHOULD be prosecuted, but I think Durham has figured out that it's a waste of time to prosecute anyone in the current arena.

One thing he has confirmed: Trump was right once again.

Yes, the usual suspects can go on convincing themselves their Emperor indeed has very fine clothes.

[Bob Juch]

Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand deeper now.

There are lots of people who SHOULD be prosecuted, but I think Durham has figured out that it's a waste of time to prosecute anyone in the current arena.

One thing he has confirmed: Trump was right once again.

TFG was wrong: There was no deep-state conspiracy.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand deeper now.

There are lots of people who SHOULD be prosecuted, but I think Durham has figured out that it's a waste of time to prosecute anyone in the current arena.

One thing he has confirmed: Trump was right once again.

TFG was wrong: There was no deep-state conspiracy.

How appropriate is your avatar!!!
Tell me again how Trump colluded with Russia, and please show me Schiff's proof. Neither Mueller nor Durham could find it. His dog must've ate it.
Expound for me how the 2020 election was not tampered with using the power of the government. Oh, yeah, the FBI was playing the media. That's the ticket!
Dissuade me from even thinking that Washington Uniparty and its pals did everything they could to sabotage Trump's term in office (Strzok's Insurance Policy).
Oh, and make sure someone calls me a moron or something like that there.
At least you've acknowledged, without even realizing it, that there IS a deep state.

[BackInTex]

Not my original thought, but it is more true than not.

It appears the only people not involved in the Trump/Russia collusion scandal were Trump and Russia.

[wbtravis007]

Yes, let's bury our heads in the sand deeper now.

There are lots of people who SHOULD be prosecuted, but I think Durham has figured out that it's a waste of time to prosecute anyone in the current arena.

One thing he has confirmed: Trump was right once again.

Of course he was.

CRIME OF THE CENTURY!

Right.

What’s a cubit?

[flockofseagulls104]

For the Usual Suspects: Here it is for you in a nutshell.

Prior to 2016, Donald Trump was Donald Trump. The Donald. A celebrity, A rich guy, A TV Star. Acceptable in the popular culture.
Then he ran for President. Then he actually caught on. Then, against all odds, he actually won.

Whooooa! Then what did he become?

Greg Gutfeld summed it up:

The Left created a devil that was so big and so vast that they made all actions permissible.
They made every institution, as the judge was saying, subject to suspicion.
You can bury stories, create hoaxes, you can fund smears.
It can go anywhere because this person must be stopped.
Now we are left and none of it is true.
So we had a half-a-decade hoax that infected and undermined every institution because we were made to believe this person is evil.

You need to accept the fact that none of it is true. Mueller couldn't prove it. Schiff was lying. Hillary made it all up. What more evidence do you need to convince you that you are being lied to by the people that your buddy Schumer warned us about when he told Trump "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

So what are you left with? Are you all going to keep foolishly insisting that Trump was a Putin puppet? Or are you going to wake up?

Are you going to keep calling those of us that are skeptical about the 2020 election morons? Are you going to keep taking the word of the 'experts' who LIED to you for so many years?

There's so much broken that needs to be fixed, but people like you stand in the way.

When are you going to wake up?

Oh BTW travis: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cubit I don't get your attempt at being clever.

[BackInTex]

Oh BTW travis: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cubit I don't get your attempt at being clever.

He's probably a small guy with cubit envy.

[Bob Juch]

Could it be that they didn't find a Russian connection for the same reason you don't see elephants hiding in trees?

[BackInTex]

Could it be that they didn't find a Russian connection for the same reason you don't see elephants hiding in trees?

You think elephants hide in trees? That explains a lot.

[flockofseagulls104]

Could it be that they didn't find a Russian connection for the same reason you don't see elephants hiding in trees?

Most probably.
Logical thinking does not seem to be your strong point.

[Vandal]

FYI, Skippy is referencing this famous Bill Cosby routine:

[jarnon]

FYI, Skippy is referencing this famous Bill Cosby routine:

Here’s an excerpt from a parody of the Book of Esther that I wrote years ago, that also happens to mention cubits:

Now it came to pass that the days of the reign of the king Barack were coming to an end. Then Trump arose again to seek the throne. And he said: “Woe unto the king and his counselor Hillary, who feast with our enemies, even the king of Persia who cries ‘Death to America and Israel!’” And he said: “There are strangers among us, whose tongue is not our tongue, and whose customs are diverse from ours. Let us gather them and return them to the land of their birth, even the kingdom of Mexico. And let us build a great wall, fifty cubits high, on the border.” And he said: “The people of Syria and the plain of Nineveh, even the women and children, are a danger to us, for they may join themselves unto our enemies. When I am the king, they shall not enter our land!”

[flockofseagulls104]

So the past few posts are your answer to the points I made?

And he says I need to get help?

[wbtravis007]

So now you're begging for an argument? I'm not surprised, of course. But still. That's pretty damned funny.

If I see something of yours that's worthy of a response, and I have time, I'll respond.

I have time now.

[Beebs52]

Swinging Richards.

[BackInTex]

Flock,

You might think they just have ther heads in the sand, but it's worse.

They just don't care.
They don't care about free and fair elections.
They don't care about people who don't agree with their politics.

Win at all cost.
The ends justifies the means.

Destroy your political opponents, any way necessary....they'll look the other way.
Gaslight the rest.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ummmm...

I guess one way to avoid coping with facts that you find inconvenient is by adamantly refusing to accept them no matter what. We could call that faith-based politics, because no amount of contrary evidence will ever convince you.

Other ways are changing the subject (the most popular one with the Usual Suspects here), ridiculing the messenger and any others that agree with him so you can discount and ignore the points made, acting like you are above it all when you have no understanding or answer at all about the subject at hand, and pretending to be clever by posting obscure quotes from things that have no relation to the topic being addressed..

Mirror much?

[flockofseagulls104]

So now you're begging for an argument? I'm not surprised, of course. But still. That's pretty damned funny.

If I see something of yours that's worthy of a response, and I have time, I'll respond.

I have time now.

No, actually I just want to be entertained by the shallow and convoluted responses. You have certainly outdone yourself this time.