Durham kicked ass and took names

Let's not be dramatic about a big mouth scumbag like Trump. He brings a lot of this shit on himself with his crooked bullshit... Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

You don't get it. You can't get rid of Trump by being as crooked as you think he is. The FBI is supposed to stay the fuck out of politics. Instead, it corruptly spied on the Presidential campaign of a major political party. When Nixon tried to do that in 1972, he was forced to resign.

The OP's topic was about another one of Trump's flunkies failing as usual... Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Durham is hardly a "Trump flunky". He was appointed by Bill Barr, a brilliant Attorney General who was frequently exasperated by/at odds with Trump. Try to pay attention. You seem to see everything in simplistic black & white terms, dontcha? Anyone who investigates Trump's investigators must be ipso factor a "Trump flunky". Doesn't matter if the investigators broke all the rules. Anyone who objects to FBI misconduct is a flunky.

Thanks for your deep insight. With thinking like yours, it's no wonder our democracy is at risk.

Admit a bribe. Lol. That’s a stupid interpretation... Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Would you feel more comfortable calling it a bounty instead of a bribe?

Think about it. The FBI was offering $1 million of taxpayer money in return for dirt on the Presidential candidate of one of our major political parties.

And you're cool with that?

The Durtham investigation has been pure heaven......unless you happen to be a Trumptard. Originally Posted by matchingmole

The results were probably pure hell for Durham's career. LOL

From day one, I'll bet Durham knew exactly what he wanted out of his investigation. He saw what the FBI did, Jim Comey admitting that he would never have treated Obama the way he treated Trump because he loathed Trump and "thought he could get away with it". What an incredible arrogant thing to say in public. Don't think that is supposed to matter to the FBI, who you hate and who you like and we got plenty of that with Peter "I'll get the scumbag for you sweetie" Strzok to his crying girlfriend Lisa Page who wanted assurances from Strzok that he would take down Trump. "Don't you worry about that honey", said Strzok


So how to get the ball rolling in exposing the FBI ( the leadership ) for their bias and corruption? Got to put somebody on trial for something so that you can put an FBI agent on the stand ( Auten ) who confirms that the FBI violated the law and their oath when first they falsified an official application to the FISA court, which got the FBI lawyer indicted.


Then when their investigation of Papadopolos, the first to be investigated, became nothing worthwhile, the man got 14 days in jail because the judge thought the whole charge was stupid and certainly didn't prove any wrong doing by Trump.


https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/64553...ced-to-14-days


Ex-Trump Aide Papadopoulos, 1st Charged In Russia Probe, Sentenced To 14 Days



Same deal here, indict somebody for lying ( it works both ways unfortunately ) even if a conviction means nothing, to get to the real crooks and that is what Durham accomplished setting up for the hearings by the Republican House Judiciary Committee come Jan.


So, the Democrats will say see, Sussman, acquitted even though the trial proved he was a key player in putting together this conspiracy between the Clinton campaign, the FBI and the media. Now they can say, see, Danchenko acquitted of lying!


But what Republicans and Independents heard was an FBI agent on the stand confirming that the FBI presented un-verified evidence ( Steele dossier ) or as I like to call it, lying, in the first application for a FISA warrant on Carter Page who the FBI also lied about.


Durham apparently recognized in his many years of experience, that he couldn't, in some cases bring charges against some FBI people because the statute of limitations had run out and how difficult it would be after witnessing the IG Horowitz fiasco when he said, even with all the evidence in all those e-mails showing Strzok's bias, that Horowitz couldn't prove bias. Yeah, right.


So, how to get in the evidence of all the law breaking and un-ethical activities of the FBI without going after all the people at the FBI responsible for this debacle? Go after the low hanging fruit with "pick somebody" and charge them with lying even though getting a conviction would be essentially meaningless since he couldn't get the actual FBI lawbreakers for what ever reason.


So now we know what really happened. From day one when the Papadopolos case fizzled to nothing, the Steele dossier became "the thing that would finally get Trump" and it was all lies made up by a guy who hated Trump and to get a payday, made up a story.


Of course Durham would have liked convictions but they weren't the purpose of the investigation, they were a means to an end, that end being proof that the FBI was as corrupt as the day was long from the very being of the Trump Presidency.

Uh huh

^^^^

Let me "simplify" this.


First it was IG Horiwitz that pointed out the "flaws" in the FBI.

After the report's release, Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to "gross incompetence and negligence" rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias,[36] and stated: "The activities we found don't vindicate anyone who touched this. The actions of FBI agents were not up to the standards of the FBI." in a Senate hearing[37] As a result of the findings, Horowitz announced a broader review of the FBI's FISA warrant application process, to study whether problems with the process are systemic.[38] Horowitz reacted to Barr and Durham's statements in congressional testimony by stating that his office stands by their finding. Horowitz expressed surprise at Durham's statement, and in subsequent testimony stated his view that conclusions should not be announced until an investigation is complete.[39] Horowitz testified that he had met Durham in November 2019 and requested from Durham any information relevant to the review by his office. Horowitz also testified that he was not given information by Barr or Durham that would change his finding that the investigation was justified.[39][40] According to Horowitz, Durham's opinion at the time of their meeting was that the information on Papadopoulos was "sufficient to support [a] preliminary investigation", but not necessarily the "full counterintelligence investigation" that Crossfire Hurricane was.[39] A preliminary investigation allows the FBI to use confidential human sources, but not the court-ordered surveillance which Carter Page was subjected to.

Kevin Clinesmith, council to the FBI was indicted and found guilty of falsifying an application for a warrant to the FISA court.


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-durham-398605


Former FBI attorney pleads guilty in Durham probe

Lol.

You don't always have to judge a person by what they do say, you can judge them on what they won't say because they have nothing.

Let me "simplify" this.



Former FBI attorney pleads guilty in Durham probe

[LEFT]Kevin Clinesmith admitted to altering an email used to seek surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

[COLT] Originally Posted by HedonistForever

He testified he changed it for brevity, not deceit.

But continue on with the only conviction Durham got.


Basically a jaywalking offense


https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...e-email-463750

Clinesmith insisted that he thought the statement was true at the time and only altered the message to save himself the hassle of procuring another email from the CIA. Prosecutors contested that claim, arguing that the FBI lawyer intended to mislead his colleague, but Boasberg sided with the defense on that point.

“My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true,” Boasberg said. “By altering the email, he was saving himself some work and taking an inappropriate shortcut.”

You don't always have to judge a person by what they do say, you can judge them on what they won't say because they have nothing. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I long since stopped arguing with peoples opinion. You made up a whole scenario about Durham’s grand plan. I stated a fact. He lost two trials where people were accused of lying. He proved nothing. He failed. Is that saying enough.

I long since stopped arguing with peoples opinion. You made up a whole scenario about Durham’s grand plan. I stated a fact. He lost two trials where people were accused of lying. He proved nothing. He failed. Is that saying enough. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yes, it is and it is what I expected. Durham got on the record, something you chose to ignore because you don't want it to be true, that the FBI agent Auten confirmed that the FBI knew that what they were submitting in the application to get a FISA warrant was unverified which violated the rules of the court and violated the ethics of the FBI to be truthful no matter who it hurt. This whole thing was a conspiracy by the FBI.


Durham: You and your colleagues took information and put it in the Carter Page application. You didn't have corroboration from FBI databases ( required by law ) from others in the intel community agencies or from Christopher Steele and it still went into a FISA application.


Auten: correct


Neither Sussman nor Danchenko were the real target. They were a means to an end to get the FBI on the stand to admit they violated the law AGAIN after Clinesmiths conviction. All this court information ( no more speculation ) will be used in the upcoming House Judiciary committee to further expose the corrupt, duplicitous FBI.



So since you are tired of arguing other peoples opinion ( what else are you here for ) all you have left is Uh Huh and LOL. Why not just stop posting if you are tired of arguing opinions. It's kinda what we do here. "Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

So, one more time, did the FBI council falsify an application to the FISA court? Yes he did.


Was the entire leadership at the FBI aware that they were submitting unverified information in that application? Yes they were.


So what will it be Uh Huh, LOL or another "nothing answer" because you just can't bring yourself to tell the truth which I and others have known since you and NoirMan started posting.

Ask yourself this. Why did Durham, in a trial against Danchenko, who to my knowledge had nothing what so ever to do with filing a false FISA application against Carter Page before the FISA court, ask FBI agent Auten, on the stand, if he agreed that the FBI falsely submitted un-verified information to the FISA court which was un-lawful? Why? Because that was his goal all along, to prove corruption at the top of the FBI.


Durham knew years ago what everybody watching Fox news knew from day one, because Devin Nunez spelled all of this out years ago. Adam "shit for brains" Schiff called Nunes a liar, so of course the MSM called him a liar too.


Now we know the truth.


Why won't a certain posted who shall remain nameless ( so I don't get a warning about calling a poster out by name ) say a word about the Clinesmith conviction? Haven't heard a word but it's possible I missed it though I doubt it.


Why won't this person comment on the Auten admission that the FBI "knowingly" filed an application with the FISA court with un-verified information disregarding the law and their ethical obligation?



Why?

Lol. Dude. HFRipmany is really going at it. At least you’re semi-entertaining.