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]LOL at the alternative media of Slate and CNN... reminds me of the South China Morning Post reporting on behalf of Dear Leader Xi.[/quote]

Did you read the links?  These are articles from 2016 and 2017.

This all happened, we saw it in real-time.  Some have just (conveniently) forgotten.[/quote]

No no no, no one saw this in real-time. We all heard a fabricated story as told by MSM.[/quote]

The story at the time was that a bunch of white-hats saw this data, thought it was weird, became concerned, and shopped it to various experts and journalists.  Eventually it was shopped to the FBI, who investigated for years before eventually shrugging.

Durham is saying that Sussman and buddies purposefully fed "derogatory" information to the FBI to ... waste government resources?  Make Trump look bad?  Something else?  In reality, Sussman didn't receive fabricated data or misleading data and intentionally mislead the FBI about any of it.  This data had been around for a while and a number of people had legitimate concerns, including eventually the FBI when they received it.  No one could make sense of it.  Not the white hats, not the FBI.

Where is the bad faith?  Can you spot it?[/quote]

No, the white hats did not see EOP DNS data. That information is not generally disclosed. This is why the news stories back then only mentioned Trump's private organizations. Sussman did not receive fabricated data, but he did provide misleading data through omission. He also intentionally lied to the FBI about his relationships. Allegedly. [/quote]

All that Durham is officially charging is that Sussman omitted his client when talking to Baker.  That's it.

This motion has a bunch of other stuff, as the original charging document did.  It's all prejudicial and irrelevant.  But the backstory, that Sussman provided the FBI with concerning information, Durham is trying to spin that as making Sussman looking sus when it actually shows that Sussman and the FBI had valid concerns and properly investigated them.  [/quote]

:roll:

Well, yea, because Sussman was the recipient and not the discloser. [/quote]

If Durham has anything more to say,  if Durham has anyone else to charge, then he needs to do that, not file vaguely threatening motions about conflicts of interest.  [/quote]

Prosecutors have discretion on who, what, and when to charge. [/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