LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Durham Investigating The Clinton Campaign

ll74 said:
That's not what that means. He's not pursuing anything but supporting evidence to Sussman's trial.
Click to expand...
Learn how to read:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and then the start of his presidency."

These parties acted as 'joint venturers and therefore should be 'considered as co-conspirators
 
Rightguide said:
Learn how to read:
"In a bombshell court filing late Monday night, Durham for the first time suggested Hillary Clinton's campaign, her researchers and others formed a "joint venture or conspiracy" for the purpose of weaving the collusion story to harm Trump's election chances and then the start of his presidency."

"These parties acted as 'joint venturer' and therefore should be 'considered as co-conspirator,'"
Click to expand...
Yes, I read the text message and the article...it doesn't say anything about future filings and is meant to reinforce his case against Sussman.

And it was part of a filing in the Sussman case.

Your quote from an analysis by the biased article is just an ignorant interpretation of the filing meant for delusional dipshits like you to get hard over and share to your Trumpy friends
 
Last edited:
ll74 said:
Yes, I read the text message and the article...it doesn't say anything about future filings and is meant to reinforce his case against Sussman.

And it was part of a filing in the Sussman case.

You quoting an analysis by the biased article is just an ignorant interpretation of the filing meant for dipshits like you to get hard over
Click to expand...
Who said anything about "future filings?" We don't know the extent of future charges. if any, but that doesn't preclude a conspiracy prosecution going forward. I think his words are an indication of where this investigation may go. You don't have to establish a conspiracy or mention a conspiracy to prove a simple perjurious false statement to the FBI
 
Rightguide said:
Who said anything about "future filings?" We don't know the extent of future charges. if any, but that doesn't preclude a conspiracy prosecution going forward. I think his words are an indication of where this investigation may go. You don't have to establish a conspiracy or mention a conspiracy to prove a simple perjurious false statement to the FBI
Click to expand...
No conspiracy charges have been filed and you are posting to suggest the Clinton campaign is involved, so what else would you be posting about it, if not for suggestion that a future indictment is forthcoming?

Why would he include anything that doesn't support his case in a filing meant to support his case?

You're absolutely delusional.
 
ll74 said:
Yes, I read the text message and the article...it doesn't say anything about future filings and is meant to reinforce his case against Sussman.

And it was part of a filing in the Sussman case.

Your quote from an analysis by the biased article is just an ignorant interpretation of the filing meant for delusional dipshits like you to get hard over and share to your Trumpy friends
Click to expand...
The article isn't biased. You read it with jaundiced TDS eyes. Yes, your clueless belief system is collapsing all around you. Here, take a tissue.
 
Rightguide said:
The article isn't biased. You read it with jaundiced TDS eyes. Yes, your clueless belief system is collapsing all around you. Here, take a tissue.
Click to expand...
I'm reading the filing as is. You're reading it with the belief that there was a conspiracy.....and this is just reinforcing that you think Durham agrees with you and is going to indict Clinton or her campaign officials in kind.

I don't need anything....your premature victory laps from your delusional logic is entertainment enough.
 
Rightguide said:
The article isn't biased. You read it with jaundiced TDS eyes. Yes, your clueless belief system is collapsing all around you. Here, take a tissue.
Click to expand...

Just the News
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Just the News Questionable and Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks and the promotion of conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda.

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
 
Rightguide said:
I'm not blind but I am a partisan. like you are. I did praise Manchin for favoring the coal industry lobby over his constituents. I suspect you didn't see that.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Fixed that for ya.
And yes, we saw it.
 
jomar said:
Just the News
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Just the News Questionable and Right Biased based on story selection that mostly favors a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks and the promotion of conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda.

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Click to expand...
Oh, don't get Rightguide started about fact-checkers! :rolleyes:
 
pecksniff said:
Oh, don't get Rightguide started about fact-checkers! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But I want to hear him link his nuh uh fact checkers are super left biased thread and whine about arguing against the article’s FACTS, not the messenger even though the messenger is so full of shit so not worth it.
 

Latest Durham Filing on Sussmann Shows the Net Is Tightening, People Are Flipping​

By Nick Arama | Apr 16, 2022 12:00 PM ET

When last we left you in the saga of the Durham probe, the defense’s motion to dismiss the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann had been denied. That means that barring a plea or further postponement, Sussmann will go to trial May 16 (as currently scheduled), on the charge of the false statement to the FBI. As I noted, that must be making the folks in Clinton-land sweat with what could be coming next.

Now, more information has come out in the latest filings in the case and if it wasn’t obvious already, these filings make it clear that this is going beyond Michael Sussmann. This is from the government’s response to multiple motions from the defense.

First, we know that the smear that was perpetrated against the Trump Organization about the supposed contact with the Alfa Bank — to make it look like Donald Trump was somehow communicating with the Russians — was not true. But the information in the most recent filings indicates that the CIA thought it may have been fabricated. The CIA concluded it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated”:


Durham doesn’t go that far. But in another filing, in opposition to an effort by the defense to exclude an expert witness for the government, Durham says he will present an agent expert to show that the tech people behind the claim about the Alfa Bank could not have reasonably believed the conclusion about the data that they were claiming and that they passed on to the FBI.

How do we know that it is probably going to encompass more people? Durham discusses grants of immunity to different people. Durham gave immunity to “Researcher 2” to explain what had been done with the data, and that he raised concerns to the defendant about whether the data was being “unlawfully collected and used.”

Much more, and court filing here:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/202...net-is-tightening-people-are-flipping-n551196
 
Rightguide said:

Latest Durham Filing on Sussmann Shows the Net Is Tightening, People Are Flipping​

By Nick Arama | Apr 16, 2022 12:00 PM ET

When last we left you in the saga of the Durham probe, the defense’s motion to dismiss the case against former Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann had been denied. That means that barring a plea or further postponement, Sussmann will go to trial May 16 (as currently scheduled), on the charge of the false statement to the FBI. As I noted, that must be making the folks in Clinton-land sweat with what could be coming next.

Now, more information has come out in the latest filings in the case and if it wasn’t obvious already, these filings make it clear that this is going beyond Michael Sussmann. This is from the government’s response to multiple motions from the defense.

First, we know that the smear that was perpetrated against the Trump Organization about the supposed contact with the Alfa Bank — to make it look like Donald Trump was somehow communicating with the Russians — was not true. But the information in the most recent filings indicates that the CIA thought it may have been fabricated. The CIA concluded it was not “technically plausible” and was “user created and not machine/tool generated”:


Durham doesn’t go that far. But in another filing, in opposition to an effort by the defense to exclude an expert witness for the government, Durham says he will present an agent expert to show that the tech people behind the claim about the Alfa Bank could not have reasonably believed the conclusion about the data that they were claiming and that they passed on to the FBI.

How do we know that it is probably going to encompass more people? Durham discusses grants of immunity to different people. Durham gave immunity to “Researcher 2” to explain what had been done with the data, and that he raised concerns to the defendant about whether the data was being “unlawfully collected and used.”

Much more, and court filing here:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/202...net-is-tightening-people-are-flipping-n551196
Click to expand...
We already know that the intelligence agency dismissed the tower information, long before the filing.

How many times can they misrepresent things and have you fall for it?
 
Rightguide said:

Latest Durham Filing on Sussmann Shows the Net Is Tightening, People Are Flipping​

By Nick Arama | Apr 16, 2022 12:00 PM ET

*snip*
Click to expand...
It's interesting that Durham isn't charging Sussmann with conspiracy to commit wiretapping and possibly computer/cyber espionage. Based on the reporting, he has the evidence to do that but no charge for it.
 
Month 5 of this investigation. Is there anything new to report?
 
Rotadom said:
Month 5 of this investigation. Is there anything new to report?
Click to expand...
Apparently Sussman hacked into Trump tower computers and stole a million dollars

It will all be revealed by the secret fisa court when he gets locked away in Gitmo
 
Last edited:
Rotadom said:
Month 5 of this investigation. Is there anything new to report?
Click to expand...
Aren't you one of those who made firm statements that investigations by Special Counsel often take years? Look at Durham, 5 months and he's already got Hillary's lawyer on the ropes.
 
HisArpy said:
Aren't you one of those who made firm statements that investigations by Special Counsel often take years? Look at Durham, 5 months and he's already got Hillary's lawyer on the ropes.
Click to expand...
No. Are you drunk?
 
ll74 said:
Apparently Sussman hacked into Trump towercomputers and stole a million dollars

It will all be revealed by the secret fisa court when he gets locked away in Gitmo
Click to expand...
Waterboard the fucker!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
The Durham Report Is Out...
3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
4K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Rightguide
Durham Unmasks Alliance Between Media And Democrats
Replies
20
Views
862
windar
W
Rightguide
The Flat Tires Of Justice Keep Rolling
Replies
22
Views
867
Rightguide
Rightguide
Rightguide
Durham Is Investigating The DNC Hack
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Rightguide
Rightguide
SugarDaddy1
FEC fines Hillary Clinton, DNC for lying about funding of Trump-Russia dossier hoax
Replies
0
Views
256
SugarDaddy1
SugarDaddy1
Back
Top