Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (9 comments) [63 views]


The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (33 comments) [311 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (10 comments) [166 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [18 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [23 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [64 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [99 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [114 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [12 views]


Final Fantasy selectors, pages, etc.
Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe [NO INDICTMENTS TO FOLLOW]
By Ponderer
May 15, 2023 1:42 pm
Category: Final Fantasy

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


And I got this from Fox just for you, Bill. So that you can see that even they couldn't make anything heinous or illegal out of any of what Durham found......


Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe

Durham began investigating origins of Crossfire Hurricane in 2019

FIRST ON FOX: Special Counsel John Durham found that the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

Fox News Digital obtained Durham’s report Monday afternoon after his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBI’s original investigation, known as "Crossfire Hurricane." That investigation looked into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Durham gave his final report to the Justice Department, which released it Monday afternoon. The report spans more than 300 pages.

"Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report," the report said.

Durham said his investigation also revealed that "senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."

"This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation," the report said. "In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."

"The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence," the report said.

Durham is referring to past FBI leadership in his report – specifically former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe [NO INDICTMENTS TO FOLLOW]":

  1. by Ponderer on May 15, 2023 1:45 pm

    MSNBC just showed a bunch of tape of Fox commentators back when the investigation was formed by Barr bloviating about how there were going to be tons of indictments and arrests that would come out of this investigation and how it will prove the Democrats organized it all.

    Yeah, no.


    Durham got what you got, Bill.

    Nothing.


  2. by Ponderer on May 15, 2023 4:43 pm

    *sigh*

    And after all the trouble I went to.

    😢



  3. by oldedude on May 15, 2023 7:05 pm
    Playing the victim in your own life as usual, I see. Bravo.


  4. by Ponderer on May 15, 2023 7:08 pm

    Yes. I'm so broken up about it too.


  5. by oldedude on May 16, 2023 7:46 am
    You should be. Your paranoia and low esteem are major PITAs to others.


  6. by Ponderer on May 16, 2023 8:17 am

    Oooohhhhh....... Your sharp, words of gibberish cut me to the quick, olde dude!

    Oh the A... GO... NEEEEEEEE!!!!




    🤓



  7. by oldedude on May 16, 2023 9:31 pm
    Why does it upset you to know your government used illegal means to arrest and defame a citizen of the US?

    It couldn't be your "nullification" could it?


  8. by Curt_Anderson on May 16, 2023 9:41 pm
    Incidentally, "Steve Bannon Slams Durham's 'Epic Failure' in Trump Probe"

    "Where are the charges? [Special Counsel Robert Durham] had all access. He had an unlimited budget. He'd spent six million dollars. He had four years. Where's the beef?" Bannon asked.

    Bannon’s harsh criticism of Durham, who he also described as a “clown show,” sharply contrasts with the bluster coming from the rest of MAGA media and former President Donald Trump himself.


    newsweek.com
    yahoo.com


  9. by oldedude on May 16, 2023 10:09 pm
    I know you don't consider "immoral" "illegal." It goes back to having a moral compass. It is well phrased the FBI lost every conscious decision to make a moral decision and refused. Those that agree with them, are immoral. They violated the oath they swore to uphold. I know you have no oath. no sworn duty to anyone but yourself. I understand that. so when I use the term "delicate" "man" and "sheeple," know that it is exactly what I mean. You have no compass of morality. If you can "feel" right and have girls (literally) and women raped to support that on the border, you're okay.

    I've mentioned it many times, and you've NEVER responded. You are silent about that. Cops that are murdered, you say "they knew the job was dangerous when they took it" (sorry, a cartoon mockery of you from "Super Chicken").

    That's how little I think of you as a human being. You are on the same level as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who drilled the heads (and brains) to murder children in Iraq. He did so with the exact justification you use.


  10. by Curt_Anderson on May 16, 2023 10:47 pm
    OD,
    Durham spent $6 million and four years in his Javert-like search in pursuit of wrongdoers resulting in nobody in jail, no convictions and not even any recommendations for the FBI. It's a bit rich for him to complain that the FBI should be more judicious in what and how thoroughly they investigate suspicious activity.

    Was I supposed to refute your crackpot claims that I favor rape at the border? For the record, I have a very libertarian view of immigration. I don't support any restrictions on who crosses our borders. If that were the case there wouldn't be any people-smugglers assaulting, abusing and taking advantage of immigrants and would-be immigrants.



    lp.org


  11. by HatetheSwamp on May 17, 2023 3:54 am

    Curt,

    I followed the whole right-wing media yesterday. I'm stunned at the outrage...but, here's the thing.

    It's not a pro-GOP anger and not even, specifically, pro-Trump. It's very seriously antiSwamp.

    One that I did yesterday that I don't think I've ever done before is listen to the whole Megyn Kelly podcast. Kelly is right-wing, of course. She's not GOP. She's libertarian...which is what NY people do when they're pb types. What I like about Kelly is that she's a very reliable "canary in the coal mine." And, she's enraged.

    I'm boycotting Fox so I can't address that...and, Fox is more anti-Trump all the time. I don't listen to that gay Guy you never heard of anymore but I checked his radio show page on Twitter. His whole show yesterday was on the progressive SwampMedia abuses in the Durham scandal.

    I hate the Swamp.

    And, I can't believe that any person who has both a heart and a brain would not be furious. I guess either your heart or brain is defective.


  12. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 5:30 am
    Durham spent $6 million and four years in his Javert-like search in pursuit of wrongdoers resulting in nobody in jail, no convictions and not even any recommendations for the FBI. It's a bit rich for him to complain that the FBI should be more judicious in what and how thoroughly they investigate suspicious activity.

    You don't read well, do you. The report was all about the ILLEGAL USE OF THE DOJ/ AND FBI BY THE US GOVERNMENT (read swamp). He stated (several times) that THERE WAS NO SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY FOUND THAT WASN"T CREATED BY 1. THE DOJ/FBI 2. SOME AUSPIOUS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, or 3. THE IC. I can't believe you're that dense. Well maybe I can because you can't think beyond your jackbooted adherence to pedojoe.

    This goes back to the Mike Flynn "case." NONE of the information they "had" on Flynn was factual. The case wasn't factual. The case was/is a complete fabrication of the three parties mentioned above. This is literally charging a person with 1st degree murder per se, and the "dead guy" is part of the prosecution KNOWING there was no murder.

    Lead and I are saying it two different ways, hoping that you (et al) could understand this. I just had to say it so a third grader could understand it. THIS is what we hate.

    Was I supposed to refute your crackpot claims that I favor rape at the border? For the record, I have a very libertarian view of immigration. I don't support any restrictions on who crosses our borders. If that were the case there wouldn't be any people-smugglers assaulting, abusing and taking advantage of immigrants and would-be immigrants.

    Thank you for confirming my statement. Many times I have talked about the rape trees, and the human trafficking of kids for the sex trade. You have always said the same thing. It's someone else's problem and it doesn't matter. THOSE are the people normal people are trying to restrict.

    Those children (which are the vast majority) are taken from their home countries just for this purpose. It will only get worse if the borders are open. The floodgates will be unlocked. Many times, those being sexually traded also are forced into jobs, generally within their ethnicity. So they work in restaurants, nail saloons, fields during the day, and are forced to be sex slaves during their off time.

    You don't see any problem whatsoever with the human trafficking aspect. AND if there were completely open borders as you wish, the issue would be worse, like it is now. YOU are part and parcel to the sexual exploitation of human beings by your willingness to not only allow them in, but to support the trafficking.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on May 17, 2023 12:15 pm

    I have to say, OD, they are MEAN to you.


  14. by Curt_Anderson on May 17, 2023 12:42 pm
    The report was all about the ILLEGAL USE OF THE DOJ/ AND FBI BY THE US GOVERNMENT (read swamp). He stated (several times) that THERE WAS NO SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY FOUND THAT WASN"T CREATED BY 1. THE DOJ/FBI 2. SOME AUSPIOUS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, or 3. THE IC. ---OD

    Wrong. Read the article below to know what caused the FBI's understandable and justifiable suspicions. Here is an encapsulation of Durham's report.

    In the more than 300-page report, Durham leveled withering criticism at investigators — accusing them of causing "severe reputational harm" to the FBI.

    Yes, but: He did not bring high-level indictments or uncover evidence of what former President Trump has called "the crime of the century."

    Details: The FBI opened the Russia investigation — known as "Crossfire Hurricane" — after an Australian diplomat reported that Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had bragged to him about the Russian government possessing dirt on Hillary Clinton.


    That Trump publicly said "Russia, if you are listening..." and that Trump's sons and Kushner were meeting with Russians who supposedly had dirt on Hillary gave them reason to take the diplomat's tip seriously.

    Papadopoulos brag to Australian diplomat was key factor in FBI's Russia probe: report
    An Australian diplomat's tip appears to have helped persuade the FBI to investigate Russian meddling in the U.S. election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign
    nbcnews.com
    axios.com


  15. by Ponderer on May 17, 2023 1:01 pm

    "I know you don't consider "immoral" "illegal." It goes back to having a moral compass." -olde dude

    The problem with your moral compass though, od, is that the needle fell off long ago and you just drew another one in with a felt tip pen. And now you just point it at whoever or whatever you want to.


  16. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 2:31 pm
    Wrong. Read the article below to know what caused the FBI's understandable and justifiable suspicions. Here is an encapsulation of Durham's report.

    WRONG. EVERYTHING THE DOJ/FBI USED IN THIS WAS CREATED BY THE PARTIES I MENTIONED. THAT IS ILLEGAL. YOU CAN'T CREATE EVIDENCE BASED ON ANYTHING. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. READ THE FUKKING REPORT.


  17. by Curt_Anderson on May 17, 2023 2:51 pm
    "EVERYTHING THE DOJ/FBI USED IN THIS WAS CREATED BY THE PARTIES I MENTIONED. THAT IS ILLEGAL." --OD

    If there were illegalities occurring then why then couldn't Durham get any convictions or new charges after four years? There were not even any major policy recommendations in his a 316 pages report. It was dud.



  18. by Ponderer on May 17, 2023 3:42 pm

    No indictments. No nuthin'. Just millions and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted.

    So olde dude apparently thinks that after years of Trump/Barr appointed investigation by Durham, he has decided to simply let criminals in the FBI, who illegally broke the law when committing crimes for the Democrats and Hillary, get away scot-free with "The Crime of the Century".


  19. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 6:14 pm
    If there were illegalities occurring then why then couldn't Durham get any convictions or new charges after four years? There were not even any major policy recommendations in his a 316 pages report.

    1. He would have had to had the authority to arrest in his Authority, which he did not. Neither Durham nor Mueller was appointed pursuant to the special counsel regulations promulgated by the Clinton administration. Rather, both appointment orders indicate that some of these regulations, including “28 C.F.R. §§ 600.4 to 600.10 are applicable to the Special Counsel.” It is not entirely clear what “are applicable” means, as this issue was never tested in courts. But at a minimum, it is clear that Durham was not appointed pursuant to these regulations—in particular, because 28 C.F.R § 600.3 provides that “[t]he Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.” Durham would not meet these requirements because he is the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut.

    Remember us arguing at nauseum about the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? This is a very common issue in all criminal cases. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.

    Assume that a police officer searches the automobile of a person stopped for a minor traffic violation. This violation is the only reason the officer conducts the search; nothing indicates that the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and no other circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime. This is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Assume further that the officer finds a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. The driver is subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and chooses to go to trial. The marijuana evidence culled from this search is excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, and the criminal charges are dropped for lack of evidence.The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Assume that a police officer searches the automobile of a person stopped for a minor traffic violation. This violation is the only reason the officer conducts the search; nothing indicates that the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and no other circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime. This is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Assume further that the officer finds a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. The driver is subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and chooses to go to trial. The marijuana evidence culled from this search is excluded from trial under the exclusionary rule, and the criminal charges are dropped for lack of evidence.


    In a nutshell, ANYTHING used from any of the illegal activities by any of the agencies involved cannot be used against anyone. Regardless of how true it is, it was obtained illegally. There it is not "evidence." So. You need to show me what evidence that you know of that was NOT obtained illegally. Regardless of how far down the limb it goes. IF there was "evidence" that was eventually obtained from (let's say) the dossier, even though it is four or five generations from the dossier, it is inadmissible. Period.

    If you can show me that, I'm game. But I don't think it's possible because of the illegal activities from the beginning of the case in it's prosecution.

    Durham found there was no evidence to even start a case. It was only conjecture. So instead of finding legal evidence, they invented the evidence, which is now not legal to use in court. There is your problem.
    lawfareblog.com
    legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com


  20. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 6:20 pm
    sorry for the multiple lines.
    My bad.


  21. by Curt_Anderson on May 17, 2023 7:24 pm
    If there were illegalities occurring then why then couldn't Durham get any convictions or new charges after four years? There were not even any major policy recommendations in his a 316 pages report. ---Curt Anderson

    1. He would have had to had the authority to arrest in his Authority, which he did not. ---OD


    Who said anything about Durham being able to arrest people? Since Durham is/was not a police officer, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply here.

    Durham had prosecutorial powers which he references on the first page of his report. He had the power to seek criminal charges which he mentions numerous times (see page 15 of his report). But Durham came up short. Nada. Zilch. Nothing burger.


    May 12, 2023
    TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B. GARLAND
    FROM: JOHN H. DURHAM SPECIAL COUNSEL
    SUBJECT: REPORT ON MATTERS RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS
    The attached report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel." (page 1)

    "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from his investigation of these matters." (page 12)

    The Special Counsel structured the investigation in view of his power and authority "to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney." (page 13)


    What did Durham's prosecutorial powers yield?
    After a three-and-a-half-year investigation, Durham indicted three men, one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation and was sentenced to probation. The other two men were tried and acquitted. In both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump.

    Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat I mentioned in a comment above, took Papadopoulos seriously and was alarmed by Papadopoulos's boasts. [Papadopoulos] told him the Trump team had received an offer from Russia that it could assist the Trump team with the anonymous release of information via Wikileaks during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. (page 61 & 64)

    Downer, being a good citizen, followed the advice we all hear, "if you see something, say something".

    Just to be clear, the FEC chair said, "it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."



    cnn.com
    en.wikipedia.org


  22. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 8:07 pm
    Who said anything about Durham being able to arrest people?

    You about 200 times now, along with every other sheeple, including the worst limousine liberals here. You keep saying "there's no indictments" He can't indict. Now you're just changing your tune to fit the facts. It's a bad look for you (see below).

    Since Durham is/was not a police officer, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply here.

    Are you really that stoopid? If he's going to recommend prosecution, that is EXACTLY what he has to look at. It was part and parcel of the report.


    ...shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel

    You can't read directives well. It says he provides the decisions. It's up to the AG to act on them.


  23. by oldedude on May 17, 2023 8:14 pm
    Just so po is "happy..."
    See, they are using the report to gain facts in the case so they can look into specific charges using facts. What a friggin concept! Using facts in a case! It's something different, that's for sure.


    Florida Congressman Calls to Indict FBI Agents Following Durham Report

    Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has suggested that the FBI should be defunded and its agents criminally indicted after special counsel John Durham concluded this week that the federal agency should have never launched an investigation into whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

    Durham’s 300-plus page report (pdf) asserted that the FBI rushed into the probe without having any evidence that officials from the Trump campaign had contacted any Russian intelligence officer.

    During an interview with Newsmax on Monday, Gaetz accused the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) of being politically biased in the probe, alleging the agency has become “the enforcement wing of the Democratic Party to play offense against Trump,” describing its actions as “very ugly for the future of a democracy where the people make the choices.”

    theepochtimes.com


  24. by Curt_Anderson on May 17, 2023 8:47 pm
    OD,
    You are just being obtuse.

    Durham sought and obtained indictments. Including an indictment of Michael Sussmann, see link. It was another of Durham's spectacular failures. After hearing two weeks of testimony, the jury quickly and unanimously acquitted Sussmann.

    Matt Gaetz is a clown. No FBI agents will be criminally indicted. If Durham couldn't gain any convictions in 4 years, it's not going to happen. Durham didn't even suggest any agents should be demoted or suspended.
    justice.gov
    en.wikipedia.org


  25. by oldedude on May 18, 2023 4:59 am
    Whatever you "think." The basis for what you were lied to about in your media has crumbled before your eyes. You might want to get off the Homer bandwagon. Or, pay closer attention.


  26. by Ponderer on May 18, 2023 7:10 am

    Watching the Proto-Fascist MAGA Republican Party try to make a silk purse outta this sow's ear is entertaining as heck.

    You're quite the seamstress yourself there, olde dude!


  27. by oldedude on May 18, 2023 7:49 am
    I didn't "sew" anything. I just put out the facts of the situation. And cited my facts. If you are willfully ignorant, that's on you. completely.


  28. by Ponderer on May 18, 2023 7:59 am

    "I just put out the facts of the situation. And cited my facts." -olde dude

    And you believe that you have created a gorgeous designer silk purse worthy of Yves Saint Laurent outta the pile of sow's ears Durham left for you to work with.

    Yes. We all know what you think you are accomplishing here, od. It's what's so funny.


  29. by oldedude on May 18, 2023 11:30 am
    So where are your facts. I routinely ask you for them and you explain that YOUR "reality" IS your fact, and therefore should be everyone else's. Talk about a psychopath.


  30. by Ponderer on May 18, 2023 12:15 pm

    "So where are your facts." -olde dude

    My facts about how nothing of any real consequence has come out of the Durham investigation...?

    Well, you and many other MAGA Republicans have been providing those facts for me by being so accommodating in presenting absolutely nothing of any consequence that has come out of the Durham investigation. If there had been anything to it, you would have been giddily shoving it in our faces ad nauseum by now. But all you've been presenting is nothing. Lots of inconsequential, overblown, straws-grasped-at nothing.

    So..... Thanks!


  31. by oldedude on May 18, 2023 5:31 pm
    My facts about how nothing of any real consequence has come out of the Durham investigation...?

    To wit, I've provided actual facts that you should have known before entertaining us all with stupidity, along with your cohort.


  32. by Ponderer on May 19, 2023 6:52 am

    Just because you present facts doesn't mean that they are germane or relevant to the issues being discussed or that they make your case.

    The fact that you are having to scrounge and scrape to even come up with anything that you think makes your case tells a lot.

    The fact remains that nothing of any great consequence has come out of the Durham investigation. Certainly not "The Crime Of The Century" that was promised to the country by Donald Trump when this investigation was set up. Not by any shot, long or short.


  33. by Ponderer on May 19, 2023 6:57 am

    "Whatever you "think." The basis for what you were lied to about in your media has crumbled before your eyes.

    Your Jedi MAGA mind tricks have no effect here, olde dude...


  34. by oldedude on May 19, 2023 2:03 pm
    So just think for one minute. Trump has been tried three times in congress by the dims. IF there was anything. Anything at all that could be used in a court of law, why wouldn't they use it? Don't you think this would have been a good gameplan? They KNEW nothing was legit evidence, and yet they continued to lie their way through it.


  35. by Curt_Anderson on May 19, 2023 2:41 pm
    OK,
    Okay, I thought for a minute.

    When you say "Trump has been tried three times in congress", I presume you refer to his two impeachments and the January 6th committee.

    As president, Trump had presidential immunity for criminal and civil suits. He could have robbed a liquor store and he wouldn't be charged while president. His misdeeds resulted in two impeachments. Because conviction and expulsion from office requires a two thirds vote in the Senate, Trump was saved by a sufficient number of Senate Republicans.

    As for the the evidence collected by the January 6th committee, Special Counsel Jack Smith IS looking at that evidence and will probably bring charges against Trump.


  36. by Ponderer on May 19, 2023 3:06 pm

    Exactly, Curt. There was tons of evidence of his criminality presented at all three of those "trials". Several of those tons currently are being used for various and sundry felony investigations in several states.

    But if od never heard about any of it on Fox, it must not exist.


  37. by oldedude on May 19, 2023 6:26 pm
    The J6 IS a different animal, although there is information coming out the FBI manufactured evidence in that case, but it's hearsay at this point.

    Why didn't they use ANY of Crossfire Hurricane on the other two? AND even what they got, if any of that was even close to the evidence of that case, it's now considered illegal evidence. It'll go to federal court to expunge both cases.

    Just when you thought it was over...


Go To Top

Comment on: "Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe [NO INDICTMENTS TO FOLLOW]"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page