The Michael Sussman Trial: Special Counsel Durham's Probe Into The Origins of Russia Collusion Hoax.

[BillsFanNC]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:33 AM, ChiGoose said:

At the request of @DRsGhost, I read the executive summary of the IG's report on Crossfire Hurricane. Here are my main takeaways:

 

1. The IG confirms that the FBI investigation into Russia was started when a friendly foreign government informed the FBI that Trump advisor George Papadopoulos told them that Russia had contacted him claiming to have damaging information on Clinton.

 

Mueller stated that this is how it all started and the IG confirmed it. The FBI was not made aware of the Steele Dossier until weeks after the investigation started. The IG confirmed that the opening of the investigation was properly predicated and in compliance with FBI policies and guidelines.

 

So can we finally stop with these claims that it was started by Clinton or the Steele Dossier?

 

The BS Steele dossier unquestionably played a huge role in Spygate overall. Steele, his sources, the FBI leaking his BS dossier to activist journalists and then using the leaked BS reporting to bolster the FISA applications is the very height of corruption. I'm not sure who is claiming the dossier began the whole thing, certainly not me, but that doesn't change the fact that the corruption around it stinks to high heaven and beyond.  The FBI claims it began in March 2016 with Joseph Mifsud who approached Papadopoulos with claims of the Russians having damaging information on HC.  Mifsud has been portrayed as a Russian agent when evidence actually exists his vast connections to western intelligence agencies.  There is absolutely zero evidence that he is a Russian spy despite what the Mueller report claims. The friendly foreign government is Australia and former diplomat Alexander Downer who also met with Papadopoulos.  This information did not go through standard "five eyes" IC channels, but instead Downer shared it with the US embassy in London, in other words it went through the Obama State Department.  I wonder why?

 

On 6/1/2022 at 10:33 AM, ChiGoose said:

 

2. The Carter Page FISA applications were incredibly flawed

 

While the IG found that the applications for FISA surveillance on Carter Page were not politically motivated, it also found that they omitted relevant information that should have been disclosed to the judge. FBI policy requires that the factual claims in a warrant are vetted by investigators but the Crossfire Hurricane team did not run them by Steele's handler before submitting the application. The handler told the IG that they would not have agreed to some of the statements on the applications.

 

Between the first application and the subsequent renewals, the IG found 17 separate issues with the applications.

 

 

No "documentary or testimonial evidence" of bias.  In other words nothing put down in official FBI reports or official testimony of political bias.  Shocker.  What we do have is two FBI agents, one of whom was directly responsible on starting Crossfire Hurricane exchanging text messages on their FBI phones showing evidence of ENORMOUS political bias.  You have to be guilty of incredible political bias yourself to ignore this.

 

 

On 6/1/2022 at 10:33 AM, ChiGoose said:

 

3. Bruce Ohr's actions likely did not violate FBI policy, but those policies should be updated.

 

Ohr was not required to inform senior staff or his supervisors that he was communicating with Steele but he probably should have anyway. Ohr was also not required to disclose that his wife had previously done contracting work with FusionGPS, but it would have been better if he did disclose this. In both instances, the IG suggests the FBI update its policies to close these potential gaps.

 

4. Bottom Line: Why do people think this vindicates Trump?

 

After reading the report summary, I'm struggling to understand why Trump supporters find this to be some smoking gun that disproves the Mueller investigation. It actually confirms that the Steele Dossier was not the cause of the FBI's Russia investigation. The problems with Page's FISA applications are certainly serious but they do not invalidate what was discovered and most of the Mueller report deals with issues with the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia that do not involve Page. If you go so far as to throw out all of the Carter Page information, the Mueller report is still a damning document.

 

Because it's smoking gun evidence that government institutions egregiously abused the FISA process in order to spy on a US Presidential campaign and the early days of the administration.  You seem to be ok with the government simply saying "my bad" and then lets trust them to make the appropriate changes so it never happens again? lol.  Please.

 

Going back to Papadopoulos, you certainly also read that they used him in the Carter Page FISA applications, but what did the FBI leave out about Papadopoulos?  Papadopoulos was approached by another FBI informant in September 2016, Stefan Halper, and was asked about Trump, Russia and Wikileaks.  Strange BTW that most of the evidence of Russian contacts with the Trump campaign is from known western intelligence assets approaching the Trump campaign instead of the other way around, isn't it? They have Papadopoulos on tape saying that he doesn't know who was behind the DNC hack and if he was offered that information the Trump campaign wouldn't take it, because it would be illegal.  Kind of important information to include in the FISA application if you want to tell the whole story, isn't it?  Yet the FBI left that information that they had on tape out of their subsequent FISA renewals.  I wonder why?  Just an innocent oversight I'm sure.  Yeah, no big deal, just fix it going forward.

 

And then of course you have the FBI attorney Clinesmith who altered a document to read "Carter Page is NOT a CIA source" instead of what it actually said "Carter Page IS a CIA source"  No biggie.  Just a blatant lie to a FISA court in order to continue spying on a sitting US President.  

 

You and others are simply too far gone on this.  You've been had.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by DRsGhost

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

You and others are simply too far gone on this.  You've been had.

 

Ok, I have tried to discuss this in good faith. You asked me to read the IG report's executive summary, so I did. When I talked about what it said, you laughed at it as being unbelievable (despite having asked me to read it in the first place). You clearly have no idea how the FBI or investigations or campaign opposition research works. 

 

And despite me trying to stick to primary sources and evidence, you continue to make completely unsubstantiated claims to seem to have arisen from some online fever swamp completely removed from reality. Look at all of the claims you've made with absolutely zero citation to evidence. Given the quality of the claims, I would imagine such citations would be from incredibly dubious sources.

 

At the start of this Sussman trial, I laid down a marker on what would make me change my mind. I thought the case was weak but if Sussman was convicted and then Durham started getting convictions up the chain, I would reconsider my position.

 

When Sussman was acquitted, this apparently became evidence not that the case was weak, but that the grand Clinton conspiracy went even deeper. Clinton is apparently the kind of person who can control the entire FBI (I guess she wanted the Comey letter?), DC juries, the justice system, basically everything she touches, but still lost the election? It seems much more likely that the FBI was investigating Russian connections with the Trump campaign because there were just so many different Russian connections to the Trump campaign.

 

I don't know what the media diet is of the people on this board, but given these wild, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that fly in the face of evidence and logic (as well as the constant citing to the freaking Federalist), it's clear that we do not live in a shared reality and I find that sad. So many people just point to what media outlets and political actors claim and ignore that underlying facts. It makes serious discussion next to impossible. 

 

Also, I say all of this as someone who did NOT vote for Clinton and was still a Republican in 2016. I don't know what happened to the party but dear lord am I glad I left it.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

And despite me trying to stick to primary sources and evidence, you continue to make completely unsubstantiated claims to seem to have arisen from some online fever swamp completely removed from reality. Look at all of the claims you've made with absolutely zero citation to evidence. Given the quality of the claims, I would imagine such citations would be from incredibly dubious sources.

 

It's kind of funny that you would say this.  The Carter Page FISA warrants were shown to be bogus, complete with false statements by a DOJ Attorney -- and in large part based upon the bogus Steele Dossier.  Before that, everyone who defended the warrants said things just like what you said, above.  

 

Now, I'm not saying that DR's Ghost provided any citations, but it is certainly curious that this Misfud character has never really been vetted as a Russian anything.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/joseph-mifsud-mueller.html

 

And go to the source...Misfud denies all of it in his own words.

https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/11/01/news/russiagate_mystery_professor_joseph_mifsud_speaks_out_dirt_on_hillary_clinton_nonsense_-179948962/

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

At the start of this Sussman trial, I laid down a marker on what would make me change my mind. I thought the case was weak but if Sussman was convicted and then Durham started getting convictions up the chain, I would reconsider my position.

 

When Sussman was acquitted, this apparently became evidence not that the case was weak, but that the grand Clinton conspiracy went even deeper.

 

I agree that Durham had to overcome one simple statement by Sussman that he went to Baker "on his own".  Durham didn't disprove that statement.  Case closed.

However, there were apparently communications that Durham tried to get admitted on the eve of the trial and those were considered privileged.  I think he may have been hamstrung late in the game.  Seems like Durham should have made sure he'd be able to present all the evidence he wanted, when he wanted it.  In any event, Sussman was acquitted, that's true.

 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

It's kind of funny that you would say this.  The Carter Page FISA warrants were shown to be bogus, complete with false statements by a DOJ Attorney -- and in large part based upon the bogus Steele Dossier.  Before that, everyone who defended the warrants said things just like what you said, above.  

 

Now, I'm not saying that DR's Ghost provided any citations, but it is certainly curious that this Misfud character has never really been vetted as a Russian anything.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/joseph-mifsud-mueller.html

 

And go to the source...Misfud denies all of it in his own words.

https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/11/01/news/russiagate_mystery_professor_joseph_mifsud_speaks_out_dirt_on_hillary_clinton_nonsense_-179948962/

 

 

 

 

I agree that Durham had to overcome one simple statement by Sussman that he went to Baker "on his own".  Durham didn't disprove that statement.  Case closed.

However, there were apparently communications that Durham tried to get admitted on the eve of the trial and those were considered privileged.  I think he may have been hamstrung late in the game.  Seems like Durham should have made sure he'd be able to present all the evidence he wanted, when he wanted it.  In any event, Sussman was acquitted, that's true.

 

 

Yes, the Carter Page FISAs were flawed and the IG admonished the FBI for screwing them up. It showed poor judgment by the investigators and deficient procedures around FISA applications that will hopefully be rectified.

 

But as I stated previously, even if you throw out absolutely everything related to Carter Page, you would still have tons of connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians. And you would still have the investigation because it did not start with the Steele Dossier and Page.

 

As to Misfud, I'm happy to stipulate that he wasn't acting on behalf of the Russians. Maybe he was talking out of his a$$ or maybe Papadopoulos misunderstood what he said. In any event, you have a member of the Trump campaign claiming to be in contact with the Russians who want to damage the Clinton campaign. That has to be investigated! It would be completely irresponsible NOT to investigate it.

 

If there was truly nothing there, that would have been the end of it. Just like the Alfa Bank claim by Sussman: the FBI looks into it, determines there really isn't anything there, and closes it out. Instead, what they found is that the Trump campaign was absolutely crawling with Russian connections. That's why it turned into a big investigation, because as soon as they started looking, they found tons of connections.

[BillsFanNC]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Ok, I have tried to discuss this in good faith. You asked me to read the IG report's executive summary, so I did. When I talked about what it said, you laughed at it as being unbelievable (despite having asked me to read it in the first place). You clearly have no idea how the FBI or investigations or campaign opposition research works. 

 

And despite me trying to stick to primary sources and evidence, you continue to make completely unsubstantiated claims to seem to have arisen from some online fever swamp completely removed from reality. Look at all of the claims you've made with absolutely zero citation to evidence. Given the quality of the claims, I would imagine such citations would be from incredibly dubious sources.

 

 

Really?  Are you sure?  Because I recall you linking to Axios pieces a few times in this thread.  Let me guess the Federalist bad, but Axios good?

 

Are you sure that you read the IG report summary?  it talks about the FBI leaving out the Papadopoulos information in the FISA.  It talks about Carter Page and not revealing that he was indeed an IC source.  It talks about leaking Steele dossier BS to the press and using that very same leaked information in the applications.  Do you not see a problem with any of this?  Never mind.  They were just "flawed" and the FBI was sufficiently admonished.  Let's hope this gets rectified!

 

It really is pointless discussing this any further with you.  As I said before in essence you're billstime without being a broken record.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Also, I say all of this as someone who did NOT vote for Clinton and was still a Republican in 2016. I don't know what happened to the party but dear lord am I glad I left it.

 

I guess this is supposed to lend some kind of credibility for you being an honest broker in all of this? If so then I've got you beat because I didn't vote for either one of them in 2016, or a Clinton ever.  

Edited June 3, 2022 by DRsGhost

[BillsFanNC]

Oh no the Federalist.....quoting primary sources!

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/19/handwritten-notes-from-2017-show-fbi-agents-mislead-doj-on-the-trump-russia-investigation/

 

While Barr did not elaborate on the evidence he’s seen, a declassified transcript made public earlier in the week of a wired conversation between former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Crossfire Hurricane confidential human source (CHS), when read in tandem with Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse, substantiates Barr’s view that it wasn’t “just mistakes.”

 

 

Halper later asked “Papadopoulos directly whether help ‘from a third party like Wikileaks for example or some other third party like the Russians, could be incredibly helpful’ in securing a campaign victory.” The IG report summarized Papadopoulos’s response: 

 

All of what he says below was left out of the three FISA applications. One could be an error, two times a "flaw" what's three times then?...

 

 

Well as a campaign, of course, we don’t advocate for this type of activity because at the end of the day it’s, ah, illegal. First and foremost it compromises the US national security and third it sets a very bad precedence [sic]. … So the campaign does not advocate for this, does not support what is happening. The indirect consequences are out of our hands. … [F]or example, our campaign is not … engag[ing] or reaching out to wiki leaks or to the whoever it is to tell them please work with us, collaborate because we don’t, no one does that. … Unless there’s something going on that I don’t know which I don’t because I don’t think anybody would risk their, their life, ah, potentially going to prison over doing something like that. Um … because at the end of the day, you know, it’s an illegal, it’s an illegal activity. Espionage is, ah, treason. This is a form of treason. … I mean that’s why, you know, it became a very big issue when Mr. Trump said, ‘Russia if you’re listening’ … Do you remember? … And you know we had to retract it because, of course, he didn’t mean for them to actively engage in espionage but the media then took and ran with it.

[Doc]

It doesn't matter what Papa said.  Just like it didn't matter that Trump said "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis or the white nationalists" or "peacefully and patriotically."

[Albwan]

On 6/3/2022 at 10:24 AM, SoCal Deek said:

You are aware that Durham doesn't work for Trump......right?

He isn't, he's so low information it can't even be measured.

[BillsFanNC]

They were admonished and things will get rectified. Most of all they would never, ever do something like this to you. 

 

Never.

 

 

[Doc]

I'll see your Russian collusion hoax and raise you a J6 insurrection hoax.  In the end the majority of people don't care about either topic and disapprove of where the country's going under Joke.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

It helps immensely if you're buddies with higher-up in the FBI, so they won't ask pesky questions about your motivations.

[716er]

 

 

[Nineforty]

'rabble rabble rabble, it's a hoax [I'm gonna say it so many times that the weak will believe it!]'

 

lol, some of ya'll are great at revisionist history. if it wasn't for a misguided OLC memo from the 70's, an evil traitor in Bill Barr, and half of the republic willing to support a traitor, maybe we wouldn't be re-litigating a still ongoing counter-intelligence threat that is a small portion of the Republican leadership, and of course, the former president, Donald J Trump, the traitor. 

 

All everyone had to do was read the Mueller SUMMARIES. there is enough there that any sane person would say, "yeah, maybe this guy doesn't have America's interests at heart".  

 

Hell, I thought a possible Moscow hotel deal was enough to disqualify him in the eyes of the people. but nahhh, grab em by the *****, etc etc.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7#march-24-2016-papadopoulos-mifsud-and-a-russian-woman-meet-in-london-to-discuss-setting-up-a-meeting-between-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-4

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Nineforty said:

'rabble rabble rabble, it's a hoax [I'm gonna say it so many times that the weak will believe it!]'

 

lol, some of ya'll are great at revisionist history. if it wasn't for a misguided OLC memo from the 70's, an evil traitor in Bill Barr, and half of the republic willing to support a traitor, maybe we wouldn't be re-litigating a still ongoing counter-intelligence threat that is a small portion of the Republican leadership, and of course, the former president, Donald J Trump, the traitor. 

 

All everyone had to do was read the Mueller SUMMARIES. there is enough there that any sane person would say, "yeah, maybe this guy doesn't have America's interests at heart".  

 

Hell, I thought a possible Moscow hotel deal was enough to disqualify him in the eyes of the people. but nahhh, grab em by the *****, etc etc.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7#march-24-2016-papadopoulos-mifsud-and-a-russian-woman-meet-in-london-to-discuss-setting-up-a-meeting-between-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-4

 

Did you miss this at the top of your linked article:

 

Quote

Special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe report didn't find sufficient evidence to charge anyone from President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign with conspiracy for coordinating with Russia to influence the 2016 election. 

 

 

Keep tilting at windmills, though.  That's how they want you.

[ChiGoose]

23 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Did you miss this at the top of your linked article:

 

 

 

Keep tilting at windmills, though.  That's how they want you.

Do we need to go over the definition of conspiracy again? Because claiming that Mueller cleared Trump and then dismissing any of the evidence that Mueller compiled against Trump and the campaign is disingenuous.

 

This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp unless you work very hard not to. 

[Nineforty]

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Did you miss this at the top of your linked article:

 

 

 

Keep tilting at windmills, though.  That's how they want you.

 

lol.. you reveal yourself, Doc. No ***** he didn't find he had cause to charge them with a federal crime, Conspiracy. But that just erases everything else they laid out in the Mueller report? that erases the criminal obstruction? that erases the hundreds of contacts? the usage of WHATSAPP and other untraceable comms? 

 

you realize there is a direct connection to Paul Manafort/DJT's antics in 2015 and 2016 to the current situation in Ukraine? ***** putz. 

 

you are versed in ways to avoid actually talking about the actual findings. you are well versed in whataboutism. you are well versed in strawman tactics. I DARE YOU TO READ THE SUMMARIES with no outside source's input. just your own brain. use it. try! nah, you won't.

30 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Did you miss this at the top of your linked article:

 

 

 

Keep tilting at windmills, though.  That's how they want you.

 

i mean, i can play this game too... 

 

MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

 

But why even care about the above quote? just read the summaries of the mueller report. Read about Team M's efforts and stonewalling. read about Aaron Zebley and his role within the special counsel and the punches pulled (maybe for very good reasons). Do some actual research and get out of the echo chamber you clearly live in (facebook/PPP cesspool/wben/fox news/oan/twitter/facebook, etc etc etc).  use your own brain. double dare ya

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Do we need to go over the definition of conspiracy again? Because claiming that Mueller cleared Trump and then dismissing any of the evidence that Mueller compiled against Trump and the campaign is disingenuous.

 

This isn't that hard of a concept to grasp unless you work very hard not to. 

 

Take up the definition of conspiracy and all that "evidence" with Mueller.  It was his report and conclusion. 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Take up the definition of conspiracy and all that "evidence" with Mueller.  It was his report and conclusion. 

 

I don't know if you're simply acting in bad faith or really just struggle with comprehension.

 

If you take Mueller's conclusion that there was no conspiracy with the Russians but then you say that the evidence is bunk, then you're just arguing in bad faith.

 

If you conflate collusion with conspiracy, then you either do not understand the legal issues at hand, or are once again arguing in bad faith.

 

Either Mueller's report is trustworthy or it is not. To agree with the conclusion but dismiss the rationale and evidence is asinine.

 

Mueller documented that the Trump campaign was absolutely crawling with Russian contacts but there was no legal remedy available as there was not an actual agreement with the Russians and Mueller felt he could not charge a sitting president with obstruction of justice.

 

To say that means Mueller cleared Trump or his campaign of any wrongdoing is... dumb. 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

I don't know if you're simply acting in bad faith or really just struggle with comprehension.

 

If you take Mueller's conclusion that there was no conspiracy with the Russians but then you say that the evidence is bunk, then you're just arguing in bad faith.

 

If you conflate collusion with conspiracy, then you either do not understand the legal issues at hand, or are once again arguing in bad faith.

 

Either Mueller's report is trustworthy or it is not. To agree with the conclusion but dismiss the rationale and evidence is asinine.

 

Mueller documented that the Trump campaign was absolutely crawling with Russian contacts but there was no legal remedy available as there was not an actual agreement with the Russians and Mueller felt he could not charge a sitting president with obstruction of justice.

 

To say that means Mueller cleared Trump or his campaign of any wrongdoing is... dumb. 

 

I didn't say anything about Mueller's evidence so spare me the diatribe about what I'm arguing in bad faith.  I merely quoted the article linked by whacko where it said he "didn't find sufficient evidence to charge anyone from President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign with conspiracy for coordinating with Russia to influence the 2016 election."

 

And as for Mueller not feeling he could charge a sitting President, again he clarified that and said that wasn't the case, again he hasn't been sitting for a year-and-a-half and again, where are the charges?  On one hand you're making it seem like what he did was the worst thing ever, but have resigned yourself to them not bothering to pursue it.  How does that jibe with you?

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I didn't say anything about Mueller's evidence so spare me the diatribe about what I'm arguing in bad faith.  I merely quoted the article linked by whacko where it said he "didn't find sufficient evidence to charge anyone from President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign with conspiracy for coordinating with Russia to influence the 2016 election."

 

And as for Mueller not feeling he could charge a sitting President, again he clarified that and said that wasn't the case, again he hasn't been sitting for a year-and-a-half and again, where are the charges?  On one hand you're making it seem like what he did was the worst thing ever, but have resigned yourself to them not bothering to pursue it.  How does that jibe with you?

 

You literally put quotation marks around the word evidence when talking about the Mueller Report.

 

As to why Trump hasn't been charged yet, that's the big question. Mueller basically wrapped an indictment for obstruction in a nice pretty bow but the DoJ does not seem to be taking it. I have no idea why that is, but if I had to guess, I would say it's because they are chickenshit.

 

I don't think what Trump did was "the worst thing ever" but it is abundantly clear that he broke the law: we have the evidence for multiple charges, but the people at the top seem to be playing politics and care more about the reputation of the DoJ than justice itself.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

You literally put quotation marks around the word evidence when talking about the Mueller Report.

 

As to why Trump hasn't been charged yet, that's the big question. Mueller basically wrapped an indictment for obstruction in a nice pretty bow but the DoJ does not seem to be taking it. I have no idea why that is, but if I had to guess, I would say it's because they are chickenshit.

 

I don't think what Trump did was "the worst thing ever" but it is abundantly clear that he broke the law: we have the evidence for multiple charges, but the people at the top seem to be playing politics and care more about the reputation of the DoJ than justice itself.

 

I did that to say you believe it's damning evidence.

 

So wait, they are too chickenshit to go after Trump?  What do you think the J6 committee is about and what is the end result many are seeking?  Again, doesn't jibe.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I did that to say you believe it's damning evidence.

 

So wait, they are too chickenshit to go after Trump?  What do you think the J6 committee is about and what is the end result many are seeking?  Again, doesn't jibe.

 

Ok, so once again, a criminal investigation by the FBI is completely different than a congressional investigation. They have different purposes, standards, rules, evidence, and burdens.

 

I think the DoJ is too chickenshit to charge Trump for very clear obstruction of justice. I would guess it's because they want to "restore legitimacy" to the institution and going after a former president would result in accusations of political bias. I think there is nothing they can do to avoid accusations of bias at this point and they should focus instead on enforcing the law. I mean, the FBI has always been seen as a more conservative organization (like most law enforcement) but there are people out there who believe they were in a conspiracy to elect Hillary effing Clinton. People will believe whatever they want, but the DoJ should not care about that and just do its job instead.

 

The January 6th committee is a congressional committee. It is not a criminal investigation. It does not have to follow the rules and restraint that the FBI does. It also can decide on its own what evidence to provide as opposed to needing to go through the adversarial system of a court and judge. The stated purpose is to understand why January 6th happened and how to stop it in the future. Whether or not they are able to achieve that is something we will have to see, but it is COMPLETELY different than a criminal investigation.

 

This stuff really isn't that hard to understand. It is absolutely befuddling to me that people continue to conflate the two very different types of investigations.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/durham-inquiry-trump-russia.amp.html
 

What? Winding down? No Gitmo for the perps?? Where’s that Storm you promised us??  😜

Edited September 15, 2022 by The Frankish Reich

[BillsFanNC]

29 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/durham-inquiry-trump-russia.amp.html
 

What? Winding down? No Gitmo for the perps?? Where’s that Storm you promised us??  😜

 

Well if Goldman and Savage say so it must be true!

 

Talk about two Russia collusion spewing hacks.

 

But sure...... Julie Kelly!

Of course bupkis on the FBI taking on Danchenko as a CHS AFTER he already lied to them.

 

Everything is on the up and up.

 

Not even a smidgen of corruption as Barry would say, right?

 

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by DRsGhost

[BillsFanNC]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

40 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

You know how you guys always mock the latest Trump investigations? "This time we really got him!"

Well, this time you really didn't get Hillary. Again.

You know how you also say "No one cares?"

Well, this time really no one cares. It's over. "Hillary's emails" "Benghazi." Haha, nobody's listening (except Julie Kelly and her stay-at-home-mom army)

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

This thread reminds me of this nut job

 

 

The idiots don’t know when to stfu

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

This thread reminds me of this nut job

 

 

The idiots don’t know when to stfu

 

When will you? 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

When will you? 

 

Their hypocrisy on almost every topic makes them not worth listening to anymore.

[BillStime]

On 5/16/2022 at 4:52 PM, Doc said:

He had a duty to inform the FBI he was working for Shrill when passing off his lies. 

 

Another gem.

 

So much for draining the swamp, eh?

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Yep, still a hoax in this thread too. And swamp juries will always help bolster the illusion.

 

Keep swallowing that load deep leftists!

[ChiGoose]

6 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Yep, still a hoax in this thread too. And swamp juries will always help bolster the illusion.

 

Keep swallowing that load deep leftists!

Prosecutor brings a case so weak that his subordinates quit because they don’t want to be a part of it. Then loses the case. 
 

Galaxy brained geniuses: it was the jury’s fault. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

BREAKING: 306 Page Durham Report Released, Blows up Any Idea of Collusion

 

 

 

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/05/15/breaking-306-page-durham-report-released-blows-up-any-idea-of-collusion-n746258

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

[BillsFanNC]

In other old news to those of us who still live under a blue sky.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]