Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Quite the contrary. I've been quietly following the trial and what the evidence is showing is that Durham has the receipts.
What will be interesting to see is what a jury in DC does with the evidence since the majority of people on the jury were Hillary and Biden supporters and some even donated to the Democratic campaigns. And, then the judge refused to dismiss a juror whose daughter is on the crew team with Sussman's daughter. DC is truly an incestuous swamp. So whether a jury in DC will find him guilty even when the evidence proves his guilt is another issue.

Always some big conspiracy! The cabal is at it again, huh?! You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It's hardly "conspiracy."

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Quite the contrary. I've been quietly following the trial and what the evidence is showing is that Durham has the receipts.
What will be interesting to see is what a jury in DC does with the evidence since the majority of people on the jury were Hillary and Biden supporters and some even donated to the Democratic campaigns. And, then the judge refused to dismiss a juror whose daughter is on the crew team with Sussman's daughter. DC is truly an incestuous swamp. So whether a jury in DC will find him guilty even when the evidence proves his guilt is another issue.

Always some big conspiracy! The cabal is at it again, huh?! You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It's hardly "conspiracy."

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

Also, Durham’s case sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Quite the contrary. I've been quietly following the trial and what the evidence is showing is that Durham has the receipts.
What will be interesting to see is what a jury in DC does with the evidence since the majority of people on the jury were Hillary and Biden supporters and some even donated to the Democratic campaigns. And, then the judge refused to dismiss a juror whose daughter is on the crew team with Sussman's daughter. DC is truly an incestuous swamp. So whether a jury in DC will find him guilty even when the evidence proves his guilt is another issue.

Always some big conspiracy! The cabal is at it again, huh?! You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It's hardly "conspiracy."

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

I want to know what they used their peremptory strikes on then.

And I don't really trust any of the above sources to have an objective viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Baker buried Sussman yesterday.

Baker did something yesterday. Not sure what it was or who it buried, besides himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Baker buried Sussman yesterday.

Baker did something yesterday. Not sure what it was or who it buried, besides himself.

It’s funny how Baker couldn’t remember much of anything about any of these events, except for the one detail that the prosecutor who was previously investigating him really really needs him to remember to make his case. And he only remembered that detail years after the conversation when the prosecutor was investigating him.

[Anonymous]

Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

Research that her OWN CAMPAIGN admits they weren't sure of the veracity. This is so typically Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

If you think this is despicable, wait til you hear what Trump did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

Research that her OWN CAMPAIGN admits they weren't sure of the veracity. This is so typically Clinton.

The Alfa Bank stuff was weird. It took lots of experts a long time to decide that it was probably just bad code rather than something more.

If you're looking at Durham's filing to conclude that Sussman or the uncharged people thought the information was not legit, then look a little further. Durham was very sneaky, what in others might be called disingenuous, with his evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Durham literally has....nothing.

Yeah I figured this wasn’t going well since the Rs here have been so quiet about it.

DP. LOL, I’ve been quietly watching to see if some MAGA would revive this to try to spin the trial as a going well for Durham. It’s pretty much looking like a fail, with a good dose of legal commentary about how this trial could compromise national security in the long run because it could have a chilling effect on people coming forward to make reports to the FBI in case they could end up prosecuted over some unintended error in their account.

Quite the contrary. I've been quietly following the trial and what the evidence is showing is that Durham has the receipts.
What will be interesting to see is what a jury in DC does with the evidence since the majority of people on the jury were Hillary and Biden supporters and some even donated to the Democratic campaigns. And, then the judge refused to dismiss a juror whose daughter is on the crew team with Sussman's daughter. DC is truly an incestuous swamp. So whether a jury in DC will find him guilty even when the evidence proves his guilt is another issue.

Always some big conspiracy! The cabal is at it again, huh?! You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

It's hardly "conspiracy."

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

Did you notice that Jonathan Turley had to make up his own work from home media outlet because he’s such a cynical lying ass that no reputable media company will hire him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

Uh, I think we have seen, in fact, there is a vast right wing conspiracy. Koch brothers, Prince/DeVos, Adelsons and other billionaires funding shadow groups, infiltrate the party and the courts and now we are on the knife's edge of a white christion nationalist authoritarian state.

Thanks for making her point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

Research that her OWN CAMPAIGN admits they weren't sure of the veracity. This is so typically Clinton.

None of this came out before the election. Remember, the dossier was only released in Janauary, and it essentially front faced and hid a bunch of actual crap that was going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

If that’s shocking to people, they don’t watch closely. I bet you a million bucks all those stories about Cawthorn originated from op research!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course she did.....
I remember when she was first lady and accused Republicans of a "vast right wing conspiracy."
Another example of Democrats being guilty of things they accuse Republicans of........

So glad she didn't win. All of this would have been buried.

It’s a revelation to you that campaigns do oppo research and then give it to reporters?

Research that her OWN CAMPAIGN admits they weren't sure of the veracity. This is so typically Clinton.

I've got some bad news for you about that laptop...