Reply to Barr and Durham

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Barr and Durham"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://twitter.com/BrookeSingman/status/1500219673354379264[/twitter][/quote]

There are emails to back Durham’s statements up[/quote]

Durham’s statement is stupid. The FBI knew he worked for the DNC. [/quote]

The text message he revealed in Monday's filing said this to General Counsel for the FBI James Baker:

"Jim—it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own—not on behalf of a client or company—[b]want to help the Bureau. Thanks."

This text was sent the day before he told Baker about "purported data and 'white papers' that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel" between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

[b]So, he claimed to be representing himself.  A lie.  [/b]

[/quote]

The bolded is the crux of the issue. 
[/quote]

Is a personal text message subject to those laws? Doubtful.[/quote]

So we are no longer denying that Sussman lied, just debating if he can be held accountable?[/quote]

What is the evidence that he was in fact there on behalf of a client?  What client specifically?[/quote]

He worked for Hillary Clinton. That's been established. [/quote]

What is the evidence he was there on behalf of Hillary Clinton?  He denies it.  The burden is on Durham to prove it.  So what's the evidence?[/quote]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689769/John-Durham-releases-damning-text-message-proving-Clinton-lawyer-Michael-Sussman-lied-FBI.html?fr=operanews

There's a lot more as stated in this article.[/quote]

The article just repeats Durham's allegations.  Allegations are not evidence.[/quote]

Jig is up. More will come out soon. Wait for it.[/quote]

Translation: you got nothing.  The trial is mid-May.  Better hurry up with that evidence.[/quote]

You're right. Nothing will probably happen with this crew.

However, it's not 'nothing'. The whole Trump/Russia collusion story was made up. So Sussman giving info to the FBI 'on his own behalf to help' (i.e. information laundering for Clinton) is a pretty big deal. None of it is true. The bank, the pee tape, the dossier. None of it. Sussman worked for Clinton. The odds he was going on his own behalf is laughable.[/quote]

Actually, a lot of it was true.  Go read the Mueller report.  [/quote]

I’m sorry. None of it is true[/quote]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ef1xJPFWkAAGvsC?format=jpg&name=large[/img][/quote]

All has since been discredited. It’s all unraveled.[/quote]

Do you not understand that the aforementioned document is the Senate Intelligence Committee report which was put together under Republican-led leadership?[/quote]

DP.
Doesn't matter.  It has all been discredited.  More evidence has come to light. 
Problem with Congressional committee investigations is that they usually amount to squat and often times, incorrect conclusions.  [/quote]

Translation: nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you![/quote]
Pretty much. They keep thinking that Durham/Barr is going to amount to something but they’re unaware of what felonies their own party commits.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics