Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Barr and Durham"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
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][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] No, it hasn't. Not even the Steele Dossier was "all discredited." Around 75% of the dossier's content was independently corroborated as true. Another 15% or so was verified as generally true but with minor, nonsubstantive inaccuracies. Around 10% remains yet to be proven, but very little of the content was actually disproven, contrary to the right wing bleating about how it was completely false and completely debunked. The only "more evidence has come to light" are a tiny handful of things like "Clinesmith lied on the FISA warrant" when Clinesmith didn't know Page was an informant - and even those findings don't actually substantively debunk or affect any of the findings.[/quote] My Lord, woman. Wishing it so will not make the dossier a legitimate thing. The only reason any of it was true was because the dossier was compiled using open source information..... stuff that was already out in the press. [quote]The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion. At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, [b]Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.[/b]” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”[/quote] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/horowitz-report-steele-dossier-collusion-news-media-924944/ And, there has been a whole bunch of other information that has come out regarding the FISA warrants. A lot. [quote]The dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele for political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was hired by the Clinton campaign and Democratic party, was “central and essential” to the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. However, the IG report noted that the application contained numerous errors and omission. The newly-declassified footnotes show that the FBI was aware of significant problems with dossier’s sources while seeking or renewing the spying authority, yet they continued to push forward, failing to update the FISA court with the critical exculpatory information. For example, footnote 350 indicates that the FBI received a U.S. intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of an inaccuracy in the dossier related to Michael Cohen, and assessing that the material was “part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.” That same day, the FISA warrant against Page was renewed for the first time. A similar U.S. intelligence report arrived on February 28, 2017, undercutting a key allegation against Trump, noting the claims “were false, and that they were the product of RIS “infiltrat[ing] a source into the network” of sources that contributed to the dossier. Just over a month later, the FISA warrant was renewed a second time. According to footnote 342, in early June of 2017, after Special Counsel Mueller had taken over the investigation, investigators learned that Russian intelligence was aware of Steele’s opposition research work in early July of 2016, before the FBI began its investigation. On June 27, 2017, the FISA warrant was renewed a third time.[/quote] https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ig-footnotes-serious-problems-dossier-sources-didn-t-stop-fbi-s-page-surveillance[/quote] Sure, it's all fake and was all debunked. 34 indictments from the Mueller investigation say otherwise. Your entire "debunking" consists of a.) an opinion piece and b.) a FISA technicality. Again, NONE of which actually substantively affects the content of anything. "Lord, woman" yourself. [/quote] The Trump fans are delusional. They believe anything that orange fat grifter tells them. :roll: [/quote] Clinton paid for the Dossier. [/quote] Conservative Washington Examiner paid for the first several installments of the Trump Dossier before Clinton was even involved. And so what if Clinton paid for a portion of it? It is not a crime to do so. And, as if no Republican ever paid for oppo research? They do it all the time. Are you really that clueless and naive?[/quote] Abandoned it when they realized it was propaganda. It was the Clintons and Democrats that used it to get a FISA warrant.[/quote] False. The dossier wasn't the only reason, wasn't the main reason, and wasn't the earliest reason for getting the FISA warrant. Far from it. FBI had MANY other pre-existing reasons to get the warrant, such as Papadopoulos. Seems you only know 10% of the story. Also, it's comical that you now call the dossier "propaganda," [b]when earlier in the thread you admitted that the 75-90% of it was confirmed was open source. [/b]All confirmed open source info is "propaganda" now? Is this a case of Schroedinger's facts? You call it "propaganda" but when it's confirmed you say "well of course it's confirmed, it's known open source" but then when that's turned back on you you're back to "propaganda?" Or will you now say "err umm yea that was someone else" which then makes it comical how you Trump apologists can't even get your damn story straight. How about you just stop posting your stupid pretzel-logic defenses altogether, because anyone here with a brain can see right through them.[/quote] Wasn’t me bro[/quote] ^^ called it, idiot right wingers can't get their story straight :lol: [/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
