Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brennan will be next.

Things are heating up.

You’re clearly not following this and are weeks behind.

This was said by Brennan and his spokesperson. Meaningless.

You think Brennan would publicly mischaracterize what Durham told him? OK sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brennan will be next.

Things are heating up.

You’re clearly not following this and are weeks behind.

This was said by Brennan and his spokesperson. Meaningless.

You think Brennan would publicly mischaracterize what Durham told him? OK sweetie.

Absolutely. Brennan is known to have been "less than candid" under oath. Of course he would publicly state this to make himself appear innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dannehy left the team because her work is done. She was one of the initial framers of the investigation. Durham is done. Brennan's interview kept getting pushed back and was the last piece. Dannehy never said that she was leaving because of politics. That was said by the fake media trying to set a narrative. She is leaving to lower her profile and protect her family from coming media attacks when things start happening. Things about to get interesting.

OMG, no.

So delusional.

Durham has nothing. But Barr is putting pressure on for something, anything, that can be used before the election. He miscatagorized the Mueller Report, he lied on Flynn, lied on Stone and here we are.

+1. If she left because her role was over/her work was done, why wouldn't she just say that? And especially after the press reports that have come out?

Agreed. The current speculation is undermining the legitimacy of the investigation. If the reporting was wrong, she would speak up to defend the investigation.

She can't until indictments are announced.
When members of Mueller's team left, they did not make public statements as to why they were leaving.
Of course, we didn't have guilty parties and fake media speculating as to why they left either. It made their exit a little less noticeable.

Bull. A statement that her role has come to an end and she is not leaving for any political reason has no effect on the investigation.

And when the lawyers left the Mueller team there was a statement on the first two:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-lawyers-leave-special-counsels-office-2018-08-31/

And the other two went back to their respective DOJ offices:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/mueller-two-prosecutors-leave/index.html

I am seriously going to laugh SO HARD when Durham turns up with a big goose egg and you all pretend you weren't delusional conspiracy theorists.

Your CBS link only states it was confirmed that they left.
And, your CNN link again, confirms they were leaving, but doesn't confirm a reason.
They are not going to comment. The legitimacy of this investigation is not "undermined" because some guilty players are feeding the media propaganda and the media reports it like it is fact.
Durham is above reproach. He does not cowtow to the media. Notice there have been ZERO leaks.
And, there has already been one indictment. Expect more.

My bad - here's the CNBC story with the statement on the first two:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/two-prosecutors-leave-mueller-team-including-cyber-expert.html

On the second one, the story states that they were detailed to the Special Counsel's office and were returning to their original offices. That's a totally normal thing.

I hope you still believe Durham is above reproach with this turns out to be a huge nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dannehy left the team because her work is done. She was one of the initial framers of the investigation. Durham is done. Brennan's interview kept getting pushed back and was the last piece. Dannehy never said that she was leaving because of politics. That was said by the fake media trying to set a narrative. She is leaving to lower her profile and protect her family from coming media attacks when things start happening. Things about to get interesting.

OMG, no.

So delusional.

Durham has nothing. But Barr is putting pressure on for something, anything, that can be used before the election. He miscatagorized the Mueller Report, he lied on Flynn, lied on Stone and here we are.

+1. If she left because her role was over/her work was done, why wouldn't she just say that? And especially after the press reports that have come out?

Agreed. The current speculation is undermining the legitimacy of the investigation. If the reporting was wrong, she would speak up to defend the investigation.

She can't until indictments are announced.
When members of Mueller's team left, they did not make public statements as to why they were leaving.
Of course, we didn't have guilty parties and fake media speculating as to why they left either. It made their exit a little less noticeable.

Bull. A statement that her role has come to an end and she is not leaving for any political reason has no effect on the investigation.

And when the lawyers left the Mueller team there was a statement on the first two:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-lawyers-leave-special-counsels-office-2018-08-31/

And the other two went back to their respective DOJ offices:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/mueller-two-prosecutors-leave/index.html

I am seriously going to laugh SO HARD when Durham turns up with a big goose egg and you all pretend you weren't delusional conspiracy theorists.

Your CBS link only states it was confirmed that they left.
And, your CNN link again, confirms they were leaving, but doesn't confirm a reason.
They are not going to comment. The legitimacy of this investigation is not "undermined" because some guilty players are feeding the media propaganda and the media reports it like it is fact.
Durham is above reproach. He does not cowtow to the media. Notice there have been ZERO leaks.
And, there has already been one indictment. Expect more.

My bad - here's the CNBC story with the statement on the first two:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/two-prosecutors-leave-mueller-team-including-cyber-expert.html

On the second one, the story states that they were detailed to the Special Counsel's office and were returning to their original offices. That's a totally normal thing.

I hope you still believe Durham is above reproach with this turns out to be a huge nothingburger.

I am more than confident that I will have the "last laugh," so to speak.

[Anonymous]

I am too.

Durham won't come up with anything, but Barr will try to spin it as such, and with help of the likes of Hannity and OAN, people like you will slurp it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brennan will be next.

Things are heating up.

You’re clearly not following this and are weeks behind.

This was said by Brennan and his spokesperson. Meaningless.

You think Brennan would publicly mischaracterize what Durham told him? OK sweetie.

Absolutely. Brennan is known to have been "less than candid" under oath. Of course he would publicly state this to make himself appear innocent.

Who called him “less than candid”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am too.

Durham won't come up with anything, but Barr will try to spin it as such, and with help of the likes of Hannity and OAN, people like you will slurp it up.

This. It will resonate with the die hard supporters, but it’s not gonna move the needle. They are gonna replay Trump talking about the Pandemic with Woodward over and over again...

[Anonymous]

There may not even be a report. But, there will be indictments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There may not even be a report. But, there will be indictments.

Just curious... who exactly do you think is getting indicted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There may not even be a report. But, there will be indictments.

Just curious... who exactly do you think is getting indicted?

DP.
Brennan, for one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There may not even be a report. But, there will be indictments.

Just curious... who exactly do you think is getting indicted?

DP.
Brennan, for one.

For what? And please do not say something dumb like treason. Like, what federal crime under what federal statute do you believe John Brennan could be indicted for?

I really believe that this is either foreign trolling or someone that literally has zero idea what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

For what? And please do not say something dumb like treason. Like, what federal crime under what federal statute do you believe John Brennan could be indicted for?

I really believe that this is either foreign trolling or someone that literally has zero idea what they are talking about.

My guess: lying.

[Anonymous]

What I want to know is...
Will Barr ever answer for his politicization of the DOJ?
If Biden is elected will there be repercussions for all these attacks on our IC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brennan will be next.

Things are heating up.

You’re clearly not following this and are weeks behind.

This was said by Brennan and his spokesperson. Meaningless.

You think Brennan would publicly mischaracterize what Durham told him? OK sweetie.

Absolutely. Brennan is known to have been "less than candid" under oath. Of course he would publicly state this to make himself appear innocent.

Who called him “less than candid”?

Less than candid were my words.
Others say he flat out lied.
The fact that you are unaware of these things makes me wonder where you get your news. Perhaps NBC/MSNBC, where Brennan is an analyst?

CIA hacking Senate computers:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-senate
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/brennan-security-clearance-removed/

About the use of the Steele dossier:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/09/brennan-lied-about-not-including-steele-dossier-in-intelligence-community-assessment-on-2016-russian-election-interference/
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/did-john-brennan-perjure-himself-over-steele-dossier/

Other instances:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/john-brennan-dishonesty-long-record/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/john-brennan-famous-for-lying-and-spying-on-the-senate-baselessly-accuses-trump-of-treason

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For what? And please do not say something dumb like treason. Like, what federal crime under what federal statute do you believe John Brennan could be indicted for?

I really believe that this is either foreign trolling or someone that literally has zero idea what they are talking about.

My guess: lying.

Oh, so a process crime?