Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Lol “where is the lawsuit?” This is how criminals like trump and people who support mafiosos think. How about Trump and his goons release the documents and come testify if they have nothing to hide, just like every other impeachment investigation. As we know, they can’t cause Mulvaney already admitted the quid pro quo on national tv

Trump is engaging in unprecedented obstruction and bad faith in regard to historic checks and balances. Congress could file a lawsuit, but how helpful is that when a lawsuit takes months if not years to get resolved, and Trump is currently engaging in bribery to sway an election less than a year away?

I also can’t say it enough. Trump already got caught.. Maybe there would’ve been some kind of argument had he released the aid in summer, but he released the aid only after he got busted by the whistleblower and congress started an investigation.
Yeah, the house Democrats could have filed a lawsuit, to be checked and balanced through the judiciary.

But no, they didn't. I wonder why! Could it have something to do with how baseless the Democrats case is against Trump?

Why don't you read the transcript of Mulvaney saying quid pro quo, and educate yourself on what the context actually was.

You take it out of context, especially since there was literally no quid and literally no quo.

The Democrats have absolutely nothing except hearsay from a few diplomats playing a game a telephone.

It's funny that you keep saying "bribery". I guess that's what focus group tested the best? 😆
 
I'll answer that question... To say "obstruction of Congress" the Democrats don't actually push for documents and testimony, and because the Democrats didn't push, they can claim obstruction.

That's the weakest "evidence" I have ever seen for trying to unseat an elected president.
 
Lmao, stop gaslighting. They issued the subpoenas. Not complying with the subpoenas is sufficient enough for Contempt of Congress and for listing Obstruction of Congress as an article of impeachment.


Let's see, it was so great that Mulvaney had to hide in the WH and then walk it back with another press release 6 hrs later once he'd realized he'd gave up the goose? You really are still quite delusional.

—-
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.

QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.

MULVANEY: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.
—-

and....


Mike Pompeo lying to Martha Raddatz’s face and the country about being on the Ukraine call. Crazy why he’d lie about it if it were such a perfect call as our dotard prez says.

—-

and....


kCbfecO.png


pY4z4CF.jpg




And lo and behold, before it spiraled too far out of hand Trump Knew of Whistle-Blower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Lmao, stop gaslighting. They issued the subpoenas. Not complying with the subpoenas is sufficient enough for Contempt of Congress and for listing Obstruction of Congress as an article of impeachment.


Let's see...

—-
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: Withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.

QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.

MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.

MULVANEY: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.
—-

and....


Mike Pompeo lying to Martha Raddatz’s face and country about being on the Ukraine call. Crazy why he’d lie about it if it were such a perfect call as our dotted prez says.

—-

and....


kCbfecO.png


pY4z4CF.jpg




And lo and behold, before it spiraled too far out of hand Trump Knew of Whistle-Blower Complaint When He Released Aid to Ukraine

You do understand that we DO ‘do that all the time’. As in, every president ever, has conditions for releasing aid. Quid pro quo’s happen all the time, and the question isn’t was there a quid pro quo? The question is, was there a quid pro quo and was it for trumps personal gain? That hasn’t been proven. The end. You can call people craven and hacks all you want. There’s no proof of anything impeachable.

Just like the highlighted part in your document. Yeah, trump talks to another leader says “hey, a lot of people are talking about Bidens son, I’m curious too, anything you can find out would be great.” What’s your point? There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m sure conversations akin to that happen ALL the time between heads of state and rulers around the world.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is zero evidence Trump cared about Ukrainian corruption whatsoever. Period. The only motive is political gain.

Trump ignored aides' advice to raise corruption in first Zelensky call, source says

White House national security advisers suggested President Donald Trump raise the broad issue of corruption in his first call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on April 21, but Trump chose not to, according to a person familiar with the matter.

One of Republicans’ central defenses in the impeachment inquiry has been that Trump cares deeply about corruption in Ukraine, which is why he asked Zelensky in July to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter's dealings with the country.

That the president did not adhere to his National Security Council’s advice to discuss corruption with Zelensky during their April call appears to undermine those claims.

Trump released a record of the April call on Friday morning, which also appeared at odds with a readout of the call released by the White House to reporters that said Trump had “expressed his commitment" to work with Zelensky to "strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.”

According to the record, Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election victory but did not mention corruption.

A person familiar with the events preceding and following the call said the NSC news release had been drafted based on the talking points provided to the president — and, because the call occurred on a Sunday, likely wasn’t updated before it went out to reporters.

“In advance of a Presidential call, the National Security Advisor reviews and approves a draft press release prepared by the Directorate and reviewed by NSC Legal and NSC Press Office, which is based on prepared talking points for the call,” this person said.

“Typically, the NSC will update the press release to reflect the topics actually discussed,” the person added. “On April 21, 2019, President Trump did not raise the issue of corruption during the call with President-elect Zelensky, despite the NSC’s recommendation that he do so and specific talking points included in briefing materials addressing that important topic.”

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement that the readout in this case was “prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert” at the time, Alexander Vindman.

Vindman, who testified earlier this month in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, helped prepare the talking points for the April call that suggested Trump bring up the corruption issue, the source said.

Vindman also prepared talking points for Trump before the July 25 call, according to a transcript of Vindman’s closed-door deposition released last week.
“I drafted read-ahead materials, the talking points,” Vindman said, referring to preparations made for the April 21 call. “All the materials, it goes through a staffing process, and then it gets forwarded from Ambassador Bolton to the President and Executive Secretary.”

Asked whether he put “anything in your talking points about investigations into the 2016 election on the Bidens or Burisma,” Vindman replied, “Absolutely not.”

 
I’m not sure why you think the political bent of cities changes my opinion on the appropriate role for govt
Hmmmn, if you think guaranteeing intellectual property rights and provided government assistance in advancement of technology and innovation is not within their role, I wonder what you would say about the CDC, NIH and the Academy of Sciences?



 
Hmmmn, if you think guaranteeing intellectual property rights and provided government assistance in advancement of technology and innovation is not within their role, I wonder what you would say about the CDC, NIH and the Academy of Sciences?



We clearly haven’t met. No, the govt shouldn’t be funding research or picking industries to receive tax payer subsidies
 
Back here on planet earth

—-
Key takeaways from the report

The FBI did not use the Steele dossier to open Russia probe
Lynch, Comey sat for IG interviews
No evidence political bias was a factor
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were not decision-makers
Carter Page was the only Trump official under FISA surveillance
First Carter Page FISA contained ‘seven significant inaccuracies and omissions’
Steele dropped as FBI source after Mother Jones article
Steele had prior relationship with Ivanka Trump
Manafort was under investigation prior to Russia probe scrutiny

—-
Back here on planet earth

—-
Key takeaways from the report

The FBI did not use the Steele dossier to open Russia probe
Lynch, Comey sat for IG interviews
No evidence political bias was a factor
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were not decision-makers
Carter Page was the only Trump official under FISA surveillance
First Carter Page FISA contained ‘seven significant inaccuracies and omissions’
Steele dropped as FBI source after Mother Jones article
Steele had prior relationship with Ivanka Trump
Manafort was under investigation prior to Russia probe scrutiny

—-

Ha. The ending of this story is obvious to the majority watching this circus. Trump was spieon when he was running for the presidency and after he won in order to over turn an election.

Your spin is a joke and your post will not age well.
 
Ha. The ending of this story is obvious to the majority watching this circus. Trump was spieon when he was running for the presidency and after he won in order to over turn an election.

Your spin is a joke and your post will not age well.

It’s embarrassing how much you’ve been brainwashed to think that using the term “spying” about a legitimate law enforcement investigation is appropriate. Almost as embarrassing as our corrupted hack of an AG and Durham coming out with public statements contrary of the IG without presenting any evidence.

Worst of all, you guys think that the fact that Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopolous, Stone got investigated is worse than the fact that they're all convicted criminals. Maybe consider for a moment that if Trump and everyone he’s surrounded himself with could just stop doing crimes for like 5 mins we wouldn’t be here right now.
 
-----------------
Medicare chief asked taxpayers to cover stolen jewelry
Seema Verma requested $47,000 for items taken from an SUV that took her to a speech.

A top Trump health appointee sought to have taxpayers reimburse her for the costs of jewelry, clothing and other possessions, including a $5,900 Ivanka Trump-brand pendant, that were stolen while in her luggage during a work-related trip, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

Seema Verma, who runs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, filed a $47,000 claim for lost property on Aug. 20, 2018, after her bags were stolen while she was giving a speech in San Francisco the prior month. The property was not insured, Verma wrote in her filing to the Health and Human Services department.

The federal health department ultimately reimbursed Verma $2,852.40 for her claim, a CMS spokesperson said.

Verma’s claim included $43,065 for about two dozen pieces of jewelry, based off an appraisal she'd received from a jeweler about three weeks after the theft. Among Verma's stolen jewelry was an Ivanka Trump-brand pendant, made of gold, prasiolite and diamonds, that Verma’s jeweler valued at $5,900.

Verma’s claim also included about $2,000 to cover the cost of her stolen clothes and another $2,000 to cover the cost of other stolen goods, including a $325 claim for moisturizer and a $349 claim for noise-cancelling headphones.


A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes CMS, said the department has a longstanding policy of paying for certain goods when they are lost during a work trip, so long as they “are not inherently for other uses,” which is why Verma was partially reimbursed.

"When paying for such goods, the department pays a discounted rate based on age for the items that were lost," the spokesperson said. "It’s perfectly appropriate that the administrator filed a personal property loss claim for goods stolen while on work travel and this is not an unusual practice for federal employees."

But the department is expressly prohibited from reimbursing staff for lost items like jewelry, the spokesperson said.

The news of the large request for stolen luxury items comes at a time of unusual scrutiny for Verma, who formerly served as a consultant to then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence in Indiana and has led CMS since March 2017. The $1 trillion health agency administers Medicare, the nation’s health insurance program for seniors; Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans; and Obamacare, among other programs.

Verma has been engaged in an acrimonious feud with HHS Secretary Alex Azar that has spilled over into policy matters and prompted separate closed-door meetings for each official with Vice President Pence. Her spending of taxpayer money has also been under scrutiny by the HHS inspector general, after POLITICO reported in March about her extensive use of outside public relations consultants, some of whom worked to burnish Verma’s personal brand.

The $2.25 million public relations contract was put on hold pending the probe, and Verma has been under investigation from congressional Democrats.
Verma’s luggage was stolen out of her rented Chevrolet Tahoe SUV on July 25, 2018, while she was giving a speech at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, according to statements she gave to the local police and HHS. Verma initially estimated the cost of her lost property as $20,000, according to the police report, before later revising the cost upward when filing her claim to the health department.

POLITICO last month filed a Freedom of Information Act request about Verma’s claims for personal damages and separately obtained the documents and confirmed their authenticity with multiple sources.

A CMS spokesperson said that Verma was one of three staffers whose luggage was stolen, and HHS lawyers instructed them to file detailed claims for all missing items, including Verma’s jewelry. "At her own expense the administrator travels to Washington, DC, from Indiana each week to work at CMS, which was why she was traveling with her personal collection of jewelry," the spokesperson said. Verma‘s family lives in Indiana.

Staff were unaware of a federal health employee previously filing a claim as large as $47,000.


Verma was in San Francisco as part of a scheduled three-day trip to Northern California that included a speaking engagement in Napa Valley and a visit to Palo Alto-based Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. The trip was approved by ethics counsel, a CMS spokesperson said.

Verma’s San Francisco speech marked a notable point in her tenure: It was the first time the nation’s Medicare chief had publicly attacked “Medicare for All” proposals, arguing that Democrats’ ideas for single-payer health care would destroy the federal health program for older Americans and lead to “Medicare for None.”

Verma won plaudits for the speech inside the White House, POLITICO reported, and she touted it online as part of a months-long campaign against Democrats’ proposals. A watchdog group later filed a complaint that Verma’s continued attacks on Medicare for All allegedly violated the prohibition on federal officials engaging in political activity.

According to Verma’s lost property claim, the stolen items included 11 pairs of earrings, five necklaces and three pendants. Verma appeared to have worn the Ivanka Trump pendant on multiple public occasions, according to a POLITICO review of her appearances, including meetings with the president and at a November 2017 speech when she announced her plan to let states impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients and crack down on other program spending. The government spends approximately $5,700 per Medicaid patient.

“Medicaid is too vital a program to let fraud and inappropriate spending threaten it,” Verma said that day.
-----------------


Unsurprisingly, the grift in this administration just goes all the way down
 
It’s embarrassing how much you’ve been brainwashed to think that using the term “spying” about a legitimate law enforcement investigation is appropriate. Almost as embarrassing as our corrupted hack of an AG and Durham coming out with public statements contrary of the IG without presenting any evidence.

Worst of all, you guys think that the fact that Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Cohen, Papadopolous, Stone got investigated is worse than the fact that they're all convicted criminals. Maybe consider for a moment that if Trump and everyone he’s surrounded himself with could just stop doing crimes for like 5 mins we wouldn’t be here right now.


The problem is it wasn’t legitimate.
 
It’s embarrassing how much you’ve been brainwashed to think that using the term “spying” about a legitimate law enforcement investigation is appropriate. Almost as embarrassing as our corrupted hack of an AG and Durham coming out with public statements contrary of the IG without presenting any evidence.

Maybe Barr and Durham have access to law enforcement tools like subpoenas to obtain evidence not proffered by those under the IG's investigation.

Maybe Barr and Durham were able to meet with foreign agents and intelligence assets to get information.

Maybe the spying was indeed not adequately predicated.

Maybe that's why Durham's investigation is now an expanded criminal investigation.
 
Maybe Barr and Durham have access to law enforcement tools like subpoenas to obtain evidence not proffered by those under the IG's investigation.

Maybe Barr and Durham were able to meet with foreign agents and intelligence assets to get information.

Maybe the spying was indeed not adequately predicated.

Maybe that's why Durham's investigation is now an expanded criminal investigation.

Your maybe maybe maybe speculation about this contrived counter investigation is super compelling 🙄


DOJ policy specifically states they don’t comment on ongoing investigations, let alone do what hacks Barr and Durham did which is come out they say they disagree with another DOJ member, the IG, without actually presenting any evidence or findings from their “investigation.” Indeed, we know it’s contrived because Durham likely won’t ever release any findings but rather just keep releasing these “disagree” statements until the election. If you have evidence which contests the IG report finding saying that the investigations were apolitical, put up or shut up.

Seriously, what does Barr do day to day other than act as Trump’s personal lawyer? I guess he can just fill in Rudy’s spot once Rudy goes to jail
 
Your maybe maybe maybe speculation about this contrived counter investigation is super compelling 🙄

DOJ policy specifically states they don’t comment on ongoing investigations, let alone do what hacks Barr and Durham did which is come out they say they disagree with another DOJ member, the IG, without actually presenting any evidence or findings from their “investigation.”

Seriously, what does Barr do day to day other than act as Trump’s personal lawyer? I guess he can just fill in Rudy’s spot once Rudy goes to jail

Watch Jim Comey's April 2018 interview where he claims that he didn't know and didn't care about who funded the Steele dossier.

Nothing to see here, folks! Just run of the mill FBI director obfuscation and lying on national television. 😆
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Watch Jim Comey's April 2018 interview where he claims that he didn't know and didn't care about who funded the Steele dossier.

Nothing to see here, folks! Just run of the mill FBI director obfuscation and lying on national television. 😆


The FBI did not use the Steele dossier to open Russia probe

A key accusation among Trump’s allies has been that the FBI predicated its investigation of Trump campaign officials Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn on information the bureau received from former British spy Christopher Steele.

But Horowitz found that the Crossfire Hurricane team — the code name agents gave to the Russia inquiry — did not receive Steele’s election reporting materials until after the investigation had already been opened using information about Papadopoulos the team received from an allied nation.
 
The FBI did not use the Steele dossier to open Russia probe

A key accusation among Trump’s allies has been that the FBI predicated its investigation of Trump campaign officials Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn on information the bureau received from former British spy Christopher Steele.

But Horowitz found that the Crossfire Hurricane team — the code name agents gave to the Russia inquiry — did not receive Steele’s election reporting materials until after the investigation had already been opened using information about Papadopoulos the team received from an allied nation.


NO FISA WARRANT WITHOUT STEELE DOSSIER.


Regarding your point about Papadopoulos, I can't wait to hear your reaction when the indictments drop for the people responsible for coordinating the illegal trap on Papadopoulos using foreign intelligence assets. 😆


But, but, but... That's only hypothetical! The reason why Durham is criminally investigating those people ISN'T because of an illegal entrapment scheme! 😆
 
But, but, but... There wasn't any political malfeasance from FBI and DOJ leadership for the FISA warrant! I mean, there were only dozens of mistakes, withholding of exonerating information, and multiple FISA warrant renewals using false information.... But it wasn't intentional, I swear! 😆
 

NO FISA WARRANT WITHOUT STEELE DOSSIER.


Regarding your point about Papadopoulos, I can't wait to hear your reaction when the indictments drop for the people responsible for coordinating the illegal trap on Papadopoulos using foreign intelligence assets. 😆


But, but, but... That's only hypothetical! The reason why Durham is criminally investigating those people ISN'T because of an illegal entrapment scheme! 😆

C6D5B81E-187E-4544-A90C-C42E0D6594BB.jpeg




Lol, keep waiting on those indictments against the deep state that you’re desperately praying for. Barr doesn’t have the balls to bring Durhams cooked up “evidence” before a grand jury, and even if he did it would get laughed out of the room within 10 seconds.
 
The FBI did not use the Steele dossier to open Russia probe

A key accusation among Trump’s allies has been that the FBI predicated its investigation of Trump campaign officials Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn on information the bureau received from former British spy Christopher Steele.

But Horowitz found that the Crossfire Hurricane team — the code name agents gave to the Russia inquiry — did not receive Steele’s election reporting materials until after the investigation had already been opened using information about Papadopoulos the team received from an allied nation.

what information did they use?
 
View attachment 288742



Lol, keep waiting on those indictments against the deep state that you’re desperately praying for. Barr doesn’t have the balls to bring Durhams cooked up “evidence” before a grand jury, and even if he did it would get laughed out of the room within 10 seconds.

But, but, but... The FBI lawyer who falsified email records to support the FISA warrant was just one bad apple.

But, but, but... Those texts between the FBI leadership lovers who had obvious hatred of Trump totally didn't let that affect their judgement at all.

But, but, but... Flynn's entrapment by one of those lovers was totally not political! Everyone will testify that it was TOTALLY above board.


We'll see what happens when there's actual prosecution possible for lying to investigators, unlike what happened with the IG interviews.
 
your post will not age well.


C97BBF6C-5B3F-41BF-B962-4F462E346877.jpeg



What’s not going to age well is your guys inordinate support for a corrupt, criminal, (likely) one-term charlatan who never hit 50% approval and who will likely be indicted for campaign finance violations (Individual 1) by the state of NY after he leaves office
 
The odds of Barr and Durham bringing a prosecution from their “investigation” are about the same as you becoming a registered Democrat

Yeah, I agree with you, bureaucrats who coordinate a complex scheme to spy on a rival's presidential campaign should never be held liable for the crimes they commit, because the chances of getting deposition testimony from foreign agents in Italy is totally like 0%.

😆
 
Yeah, I agree with you, bureaucrats who coordinate a complex scheme to spy on a rival's presidential campaign should never be held liable for the crimes they commit, because the chances of getting deposition testimony from foreign agents in Italy is totally like 0%.

😆

Take off your tin foil hat, dude. If Durham had any evidence or anything factual he would’ve come out with it to coincide with the IG report.
 
View attachment 288743


What’s not going to age well is your guys inordinate support for a corrupt, criminal, (likely) one-term charlatan who never hit 50% approval and who will likely be indicted for campaign finance violations (Individual 1) by the state of NY after he leaves office

I'm not so sure of that. He's doing very well in the battleground state polls recently. I think it's possible he loses the popular vote by an even larger margin, primarily d/t NY and CA, but win the electoral vote by a larger margin as well.

 
Take off your tin foil hat, dude. If Durham had any evidence or anything factual he would’ve come out with it to coincide with the IG report.

Yeah, it's not like Durham released a statement on the day of the IG report that the IG report makes a conclusion on predication that is not reflective of reality.

😆
 
Yeah, it's not like Durham released a statement on the day of the IG report that the IG report makes a conclusion on predication that is not reflective of reality.

😆

Durham’s statement might as well have said unicorns are real. Where was the evidence to refute the IG findings?





Hint: it doesn’t exist
 
I'm not so sure of that. He's doing very well in the battleground state polls recently. I think it's possible he loses the popular vote by an even larger margin, primarily d/t NY and CA, but win the electoral vote by a larger margin as well.



I don’t disagree that individual polling in the battleground states is much more important, but Firehouse is a trash operation just like Rasmussen and their polling in Michigan deviates way too much from the Michigan average of polls

 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Durham’s statement might as well have said unicorns are real. Where was the evidence to refute the IG findings?





Hint: it doesn’t exist


Yeah, I agree, I don't know why a US prosecutor would not reveal evidence outside of a grand jury or an indictment in a public way to taint his own criminal investigation.


😆
 
Yeah, I agree, I don't know why a US prosecutor would not reveal evidence outside of a grand jury or an indictment in a public way to taint his own criminal investigation.


😆

More importantly, as I said, DOJ doesn’t comment on ongoing investigations as to avoid the appearance of impropriety, bias, and prejudgement. Glad you agree that Durham is totally partisan, he shouldn’t comment, and his “investigation” is a charade to prop up Trump.
 
—-
Barr’s decision to publicly distance himself from Horowitz’s findings was met with some astonishment. “No law enforcement purpose is served by the Attorney General announcing that he disagrees with the inspector general’s conclusion that the FBI had an adequate predicate for its investigation of Russia’s contacts with the Trump campaign,” William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case, told me. Barr's missive was reminiscent of the now infamous four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s report, respinning the results of an exhaustive investigation in ways favorable to the president. “The statement by Barr will only deepen the sense that he is a Trump partisan who lacks the independence to lead the Department of Justice,” Jeffress added.

Durham's was, in some ways, even more unusual. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said in a statement. “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Given the reality that Durham’s investigation, which is reportedly criminal in nature, remains ongoing made his decision to speak out even more perplexing. “I am surprised that Durham announced now that he does not agree with certain aspects of the inspector general’s findings, rather than waiting until his own work is complete,” Eric Columbus, a former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said. And Jeffress echoed his criticism of Barr regarding Durham, telling me his statement, “encourages the belief that he is not acting as a professional prosecutor but is only doing the partisan bidding of his boss.”

—-
 
More importantly, as I said, DOJ doesn’t comment on ongoing investigations as to avoid the appearance of impropriety, bias, and prejudgement. Glad you agree that Durham is totally partisan, he shouldn’t comment, and his “investigation” is a charade to prop up Trump.

Yeah, a "charade" criminal investigation. 😆
 
—-
Barr’s decision to publicly distance himself from Horowitz’s findings was met with some astonishment. “No law enforcement purpose is served by the Attorney General announcing that he disagrees with the inspector general’s conclusion that the FBI had an adequate predicate for its investigation of Russia’s contacts with the Trump campaign,” William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case, told me. Barr's missive was reminiscent of the now infamous four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s report, respinning the results of an exhaustive investigation in ways favorable to the president. “The statement by Barr will only deepen the sense that he is a Trump partisan who lacks the independence to lead the Department of Justice,” Jeffress added.

Durham's was, in some ways, even more unusual. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said in a statement. “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Given the reality that Durham’s investigation, which is reportedly criminal in nature, remains ongoing made his decision to speak out even more perplexing. “I am surprised that Durham announced now that he does not agree with certain aspects of the inspector general’s findings, rather than waiting until his own work is complete,” Eric Columbus, a former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said. And Jeffress echoed his criticism of Barr regarding Durham, telling me his statement, “encourages the belief that he is not acting as a professional prosecutor but is only doing the partisan bidding of his boss.”

—-

You get your legal analysis from Vanity Fair?? 😆
 
You get your legal analysis from Vanity Fair?? 😆

Lol we all can’t get our news from hard hitting outfits like infowars. But good to know you’re unable to argue against the substance of the points made.

Yeah, a "charade" criminal investigation. 😆

I know, it’s shocking that the US is now one of those countries where the AG and a US attorney work personally for the president instead of the American people.
 
Lol we all can’t get our news from hard hitting outfits like infowars. But good to know you’re unable to argue against the substance of the points made.



I know, it’s shocking that the US is now one of those countries where the AG and a US attorney work personally for the president instead of the American people.

"William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case".

Hmmmm, no political bias here! 😆


I think it's funny that you are completely disregarding the idea that Democrat bureaucrats might have illegally spied on a rival's presidential campaign.

Far, far worse than Watergate, yet you think it's just no big deal! 😆
 
"William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case".

Hmmmm, no political bias here! 😆

Lol, nice try genius. Jeffress defended Republican Scooter Libby in the Plame affair, the same Libby who your hero pardoned last year. Do you want to try again or should I just go ahead and assume you agree now that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have put out hack political statements?

I think it's funny that you are completely disregarding the idea that Democrat bureaucrats might have illegally spied on a rival's presidential campaign.

Far, far worse than Watergate, yet you think it's just no big deal! 😆

Unlike you I’m not disregarding anything. I waited for the official IG report and it states there was no political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation. Maybe you should direct your anger to that drunk ***** Papadopoulos who mouthed off to an Australian official in a bar that he knew Russia had dirt on hrc?
 
Lol, nice try genius. Jeffress defended Republican Scooter Libby in the Plame affair, the same Libby who your hero pardoned last year. Do you want to try again or should I just go ahead and assume you agree now that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have put out hack political statements?

POLITICAL, I didn't say Democrat. Maybe someone who was involved in an extremely political case might have political biases? Maybe??



Unlike you I’m not disregarding anything. I waited for the official IG report and it states there was no political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation. Maybe you should direct your anger to that drunk ***** Papadopoulos who mouthed off to an Australian official in a bar that he knew Russia had dirt on hrc?

Hmmmm, now you're starting to get it! So now you agree that there was foreign interference in the election! 😆
 
POLITICAL, I didn't say Democrat. Maybe someone who was involved in an extremely political case might have political biases? Maybe??

Or maybe a defense attorney who defended Republicans in an intelligence agency scandal is right that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have been been making premature statements without evidence. Whatever gaslighting nonsense you want to spin, Barr and Durham are breaking DOJ policy by coming out with statements before the conclusion of an investigation. End of story.

Hmmmm, now you're starting to get it! So now you agree that there was foreign interference in the election! 😆

Lol, get what, our allies telling us that corrupt people in our government are working with our adversary Russia? Foreign interference is what Russia did and is doing, and it’s what your hero did when he said “Russia, if you’re listening...”. and when he just asked China to investigate the Bidens.
 
Or maybe a defense attorney who defended Republicans in an intelligence agency scandal is right that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have been been making premature statements without evidence.



Lol, get what, our allies telling us that corrupt people in our government are working with our adversary Russia? Foreign interference is what Russia did and is doing, and it’s what your hero did when he said “Russia, if you’re listening...”. and when he just asked China to investigate the Bidens.


Horowitz noted that the FBI omitted exculpatory statements by former Trump aide George Papadopoulos in its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant application to surveil another ex-Trump aide, Carter Page.
 
Lol, nice try genius. Jeffress defended Republican Scooter Libby in the Plame affair, the same Libby who your hero pardoned last year. Do you want to try again or should I just go ahead and assume you agree now that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have put out hack political statements?



Unlike you I’m not disregarding anything. I waited for the official IG report and it states there was no political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation. Maybe you should direct your anger to that drunk ***** Papadopoulos who mouthed off to an Australian official in a bar that he knew Russia had dirt on hrc?


Lol, nice try genius. Jeffress defended Republican Scooter Libby in the Plame affair, the same Libby who your hero pardoned last year. Do you want to try again or should I just go ahead and assume you agree now that Barr and Durham shouldn’t have put out hack political statements?



Unlike you I’m not disregarding anything. I waited for the official IG report and it states there was no political bias in the initiation of the FBI investigation. Maybe you should direct your anger to that drunk ***** Papadopoulos who mouthed off to an Australian official in a bar that he knew Russia had dirt on hrc?

So the item that started the whole spying was Papadopoulos contact with Mifsud? Isn’t Mifsud a intelligence asset who arranged a meeting between Papadopoulos and a Russian professor on a “academic” level...it was bc of this the investigation was started. I personally wonder who directed Mifsud to do so?
 
Horowitz noted that the FBI omitted exculpatory statements by former Trump aide George Papadopoulos in its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant application to surveil another ex-Trump aide, Carter Page.

Great, there was an error in one warrant application. Now explain how the warrant was renewed three times by four FISA judges appointed by Republican presidents. Btw, I’m not surprised that your heart strings are getting pulled for Page...since he’s a Russophile and Putin sympathizer.


A301BD42-65DD-47F3-8C99-12DDB9280B84.jpeg
 
So the item that started the whole spying was Papadopoulos contact with Mifsud? Isn’t Mifsud a intelligence asset who arranged a meeting between Papadopoulos and a Russian professor on a “academic” level...it was bc of this the investigation was started. I personally wonder who directed Mifsud to do so?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don’t disagree that individual polling in the battleground states is much more important, but Firehouse is a trash operation just like Rasmussen and their polling in Michigan deviates way too much from the Michigan average of polls


I'm pretty certain it's not just this one poll that has Trump doing well in the battleground states....and that's before he's actually matched up with and on stage with whoever the candidate is. If you're Trump or a supporter, you've got to be looking at this pretty optimistically. I still think there are a few candidates left that could take down Trump, I just doubt they're even on the ticket, let alone heading it.
 
Great, there was an error in one warrant application. Now explain how the warrant was renewed three times by four FISA judges appointed by Republican presidents. Btw, I’m not surprised that your heart strings are getting pulled for Page...since he’s a Russophile and Putin sympathizer.

😆

Horowitz’s report revealed there were at least 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the Page FISA applications.

The report said that the FISA applications for Page omitted information that the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, "including that Page had been approved as an 'operational contact' for the other agency from 2008 to 2013."

Another error in the applications was the inclusion of a "source characterization statement asserting that [Christopher] Steele's prior reporting had been 'corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,' which overstated the significance of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele’s handling agent." Christopher Steele is the British ex-spy whose unverified Trump dossier was used to help justify the warrants.

The FISA applications also omitted information regarding the reliability of a key Steele "sub-source," the report said.

Notably, the FISA application also omitted Page's "consensually monitored statements to an FBI" confidential human source saying he "literally never met" Manafort, as well as Papadopoulos' consensually monitored statement to the FBI "denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like WikiLeaks in the release of emails."
 
@vector2 in case you missed the point, the FISA applications had errors, as in there were multiple errors that were never corrected, to ensure that the spying continued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.