JayMysteri0
What the F?!!!
My position is "who gives an F"?
The only people obsessing over Hilary, are people who WON'T for Hilary.
It's an obsession to find a boogie man when none other is available.
LOL re: Durham
- Thread starter Cmaier
- Start date
The only people obsessing over Hilary, are people who WON'T for Hilary.
It's an obsession to find a boogie man when none other is available.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Plus, she specifically said she won’t run in 2024.
Conservatives have an unhealthy obsession with Hillary. But when your party doesn’t stand FOR anything, the only thing it can do is find somebody to run AGAINST. So I get it.
JayMysteri0
What the F?!!!
I honestly think it boils down to 45 ran against two people.
Against Clinton, 45 won. Against Biden, 45 lost.
It's no wonder they are clamoring for Hilary to run.
You almost wonder if cons would like to give themselves the pick the candidates as well as who's votes count in their desperation to rule.
- Posts
- 2,821
- Reaction score
- 6,804
Durban’s probes have resulted in only a couple of paltry court cases, and he’s lost.
I don’t know much about Durham, he doesn’t seem to be overly aggressive or partisan, from what I can tell. Despite my intense disagreement with cons about Hillary’s campaign and the Steele Dossier, it doesn’t mean that just because Trump was cozying up to Russians that Hillary’s campaign and/or the DNC didn’t have some underhanded and/or possibly criminal activity going on.
The problem is, there’s no real reason for me to suspect that. So I don’t.
Durham losing two cases does nothing to make me doubt myself,
And just think, republicans want you to believe Hillary’s campaign was breaking laws, colluding with shady figures, coordinating with Obama’s administration who “spied” on the Trump campaign…
Prosecutors usually only bring cases they can win. So the cases Durham brought were those he felt most likely to succeed in court. They didn’t. So after three years, I have a hard time believing anything else they found amounts to anything. At all.
Yet, if republicans take over the house, they will do everything to attempt to “correct the wrongs”. They will keep investigating Hillary, they will ramp up the rhetoric about Hunter Biden and open investigations, and who the hell knows what else. The Mueller probe, which Republicans whined went on for too long, went on for two years. The Durham probe has gone on for much longer, and the Hillary BS is still not entirely gone and will probably come back.
God help us./end rant
- Posts
- 5,476
- Reaction score
- 8,880
He prosecuted a guy for lying when the guy literally told the truth. (The guy was asked if he “talked” with someone. He said no. Turns out he emailed the guy.). His own witnesses undercut his case.
His closing argument said, 5 times, that trump didn’t “collude” with the Russians even though that was not an issue in the case, has no meaning under the law, and is not at all what Mueller said.
Yeah, he’s aggressive and partisan.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
Gee, the AP literally buried the lede in that linked piece. I mean they put it dead last.
[Judge] Trenga nearly threw out all of the charges before the trial began, citing the legal strength of Danchenko’s defense, but allowed the case to proceed in what he described as “an extremely close call.”
Ya gotta feel bad for a jury sitting through stuff likely to glaze eyes over after half an hour.
Sample:
Heh. Juror 1 to Juror 2 at lunch: not to discuss the case, but do you feel dizzy?
I question how worthwhile this case was worth pursuing, especially given a lack of material evidence. Still potentially shady behavior on the part of Sussman. But the FBI knew he worked for Clinton to begin with and that there could have been some sort of bias. I’m not sure it’s easy to prove whether he way lying based on such little information. And how often does the FBI go on wild goose chases based or rumor and bad intel? Probably all the time.
From what I understand this was a very weak case to begin with. Perhaps it was only prosecuted for Durham to try and demonstrate a level of impartiality to the Trump party. Not fair to Sussman, but at least Trump can’t say he didn’t go down the Sussman road thoroughly.
I’m not sure I would consider this a “blow” to the Durham case. The fact that FBI lawyer was convicted of lying to the FISA court multiple times is a pretty disgusting overreach of federal authorities. Not to say the initial investigation wasn’t unwarranted.
From what I understand this was a very weak case to begin with. Perhaps it was only prosecuted for Durham to try and demonstrate a level of impartiality to the Trump party. Not fair to Sussman, but at least Trump can’t say he didn’t go down the Sussman road thoroughly.
I’m not sure I would consider this a “blow” to the Durham case. The fact that FBI lawyer was convicted of lying to the FISA court multiple times is a pretty disgusting overreach of federal authorities. Not to say the initial investigation wasn’t unwarranted.
Agreed. I really don’t understand why there is so much obsession with the Hunter Biden situation on the right (On the other hand it’s also surprising how little many outlets have long ignored it given it’s the Presidents son). Frankly, I couldn’t care less about Hunter Biden’s stupid life decisions, which appear extensive. He’s not POTUS, thankfully. If he’s broken the law, he should be fairly prosecuted and pay fair consequences like anyone else. As far as I have seen, there is nothing public directly linking Hunter’s deals to Joe in a way that Joe was intimately involved and knew what was going on. Hunter is one sketchy dude and it’s a distinct possibility his father did not know or understand exactly what was happening- if indeed criminal actions took place involving Joe.
And I have long maintained I have serious concerns about Joe Biden’s mental faculties given my experience with these populations- and in the most sympathetic manner rather than those who find it amusing. I find it hard to say Biden is both cognitively impaired and a criminal mastermind as some people seem to believe simultaneously.
The sad reality is that our government is rife with varying degrees of corruption. It would be nice to have better policy to prevent these conflicts of interest from occurring in the first place. If you’re in high level government, let that be all your business. Perhaps it would dissuade people from becoming career politicians too, which I don’t think necessarily benefits society.
Yoused
up
LEOs lie to judges frequently in order to get warrants. One of the most well known instances of this was the Breonna Taylor incident. Judges really do not want to have to piddle around with due diligence nonsense, they just want to trust the LEOs and go have lunch. It is fairly rare for officers to get in trouble over warrant stuff.
Yes, it’s a serious problem. And the fact they did this to a leading political candidate’s staff (regardless of what your opinion of them is politically) means they can do it to anyone. And that’s a pretty scary society to live in IMO. And to compound the problem, most people probably don’t have the resources to hire top tier defense lawyers to properly defend themselves.
In the Carter Page situation, the sad thing is that the guilty lawyer’s punishment was probation. The maximum punishment was 6 months in prison. He also incurred a 1 year sanction from the bar association. What serious consequences for truly attempting f***** over someone’s life!
It seems to me if you mislead the court as a LEO or especially a lawyer (the very people educated and authorized to practice law), there should be much more severe consequences- including never being able to practice law/law enforcement again. Perhaps that would dissuade such unethical behavior?
And I say this not because I have any positivity towards Carter Page specifically, rather in the interest of justice for everyone. He just happens to be a high profile example.
Yoused
up
Carter Page is not a cause I would recommend championing, outside of 8chan. He was, apparently, a FSB stooge, which is not a good thing. The Russian Oligarchy is generally seen as worse than the American Oligarchy (by an auburn [something] whisker), so defending an idiot is a poor look. In the end, the US has serious problem, but addressing them through a country that clearly has worse problems is not the road toward fixing them.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
Russia was in our 2016 elections up to Putin's eyeballs. My sympathy for anyone who got sucked in on his side is pretty limited. That goes for stooges, their handlers, wannabe power-trippers in the Trump campaign or overeager LEO.
The rule of law in THIS country is still that sometimes bad guys get to walk because they are presumed innocent and it turns out the case grows cold on hard evidence.
Trying to frame up a stooge in American justice system is about as old as the first sheriff dealing with a ruckus in some frontier bar who decided to grab some cowpoke and stick him in the slam because "somebody's gonna pay for the broken glass and it might as well be you."
No heroes in this thing, bottom line. Who deals dirt in politics gets dirty shoes and if only that then should consider themselves fortunate.
There are always a lot of unlucky bystanders too. I keep hoping one of them is named Donald Trump since if he's actually just a bystander in anything that has gone down around him in the past seven years, it's only because he was distracted that day and otherwise would have been in as deep as he could manage to get whatever looked like was on offer. And yeah, I'm biased against the guy... but by evidence aplenty that's already in the public domain.
I’m not championing his cause and I believe I said as much. But the fact remains, whether you like him or not, that the FBI wrongly overstepped. It is possible to dislike someone and also believe they are entitled to their rights and that the government must be use it’s powers responsibly.