Barr and Durham

[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?

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!

You think? You mean that reporters didn't get all those photos and videos themselves through tough investigations? They actually came from other politicians trying to take Cawthorn down? Oh my, my world is shattered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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!

You think? You mean that reporters didn't get all those photos and videos themselves through tough investigations? They actually came from other politicians trying to take Cawthorn down? Oh my, my world is shattered.

Exactly. But posters here think that opposition research doesn’t happen. I know, I know people are stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ahem.

Note the date.

[Anonymous]

Ah, IT guys. The ones worse than engineers.

[Anonymous]

^ the only ones worse than engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ahem.

Note the date.

Yet he still won. Move on. We know Trump is completely and outrageously thinned skin but you don’t have to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah, IT guys. The ones worse than engineers.

Oh, FFS. He retweeted Clinton's tweet about this topic. Which she tweeted BEFORE the election - proving pp wrong.
You folks are so predictable.

You make a false statement, we prove you wrong, then you try to discredit the information by slamming the source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ahem.

Note the date.

Yet he still won. Move on. We know Trump is completely and outrageously thinned skin but you don’t have to be.

Nope. We will watch as indictments come down. Whether they get convictions will depend on large part to the integrity of the DC residents who serve as jurors.

[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.

Folks really need to read the transcript of bakers testimony to get this. He says he is 100% sure that Sussmann said in this meeting that he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. Sussmanns lawyer then starts asking him about other details of that meeting, what happened after the meeting, phone calls with Susan Ann over the next couple days, etc. and baker can’t remember any of it. How could any juror rely on this guy’s memory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ah, IT guys. The ones worse than engineers.

Oh, FFS. He retweeted Clinton's tweet about this topic. Which she tweeted BEFORE the election - proving pp wrong.
You folks are so predictable.

You make a false statement, we prove you wrong, then you try to discredit the information by slamming the source.

You missed my point. He's all excited because he thinks this proves a conspiracy. When it doesn't prove anything.

[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.

Baker buried Sussman yesterday.

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

Folks really need to read the transcript of bakers testimony to get this. He says he is 100% sure that Sussmann said in this meeting that he wasn’t there on behalf of a client. Sussmanns lawyer then starts asking him about other details of that meeting, what happened after the meeting, phone calls with Susan Ann over the next couple days, etc. and baker can’t remember any of it. How could any juror rely on this guy’s memory?

And if Baker relied on Sussman's supposed statement, then Baker is an idiot. Baker knew Sussman's law firm, and knew the firm was a big Democratic firm. If Baker relied 100% on what Sussman actually said, then he has no business being at the FBI. FBI sources have all sorts of motives, good and bad. FBI's job is to sort thru them.

[Anonymous]

Some posters seem to confuse oppo research with sharing known false info with the FBI to start an investigation on a potential and sitting president ( including wiretapping) and continuing to perpetuate the lie. Can’t think of any other candidate who has done that but I am will be ok if proven wrong- please enlighten me on where this has happened before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some posters seem to confuse oppo research with sharing known false info with the FBI to start an investigation on a potential and sitting president ( including wiretapping) and continuing to perpetuate the lie. Can’t think of any other candidate who has done that but I am will be ok if proven wrong- please enlighten me on where this has happened before.

It hasn’t happened. Not even now. This isn’t something that has happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some posters seem to confuse oppo research with sharing known false info with the FBI to start an investigation on a potential and sitting president ( including wiretapping) and continuing to perpetuate the lie. Can’t think of any other candidate who has done that but I am will be ok if proven wrong- please enlighten me on where this has happened before.

The info sussmanm brought was not known false info. Expert cyber researchers thought it showed real communications and many of them still think they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some posters seem to confuse oppo research with sharing known false info with the FBI to start an investigation on a potential and sitting president ( including wiretapping) and continuing to perpetuate the lie. Can’t think of any other candidate who has done that but I am will be ok if proven wrong- please enlighten me on where this has happened before.

The info sussmanm brought was not known false info. Expert cyber researchers thought it showed real communications and many of them still think they do.

This.