Durham Investigating The Clinton Campaign

[pecksniff]

...and the Judge:


- Cooper being professional friends with Sussmann - Cooper’s wife represented former FBI lawyer Lisa Page - Cooper and his wife were married by Merrick Garland (!!!) - Cooper appointed by Obama

Durham could have moved for him to recuse himself. Did he?

 

[phrodeau]

Sussmann was going to be the first of many, in a massive conspiracy.

So who’s next?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

...and the Judge:


- Cooper being professional friends with Sussmann - Cooper’s wife represented former FBI lawyer Lisa Page - Cooper and his wife were married by Merrick Garland (!!!) - Cooper appointed by Obama

https://i.imgur.com/4cNpEDo.png

just look at that shameless front-to-end Tweet jack. After all the shit he talks about Twitter.

WrongGuide owes Benny Johnson some residuals.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/BFYLNwlsSNtcc/200.gif?cid=82a1493bedrehztfnqlrevxygeorj9be5qn51sttuvhx7vmm&rid=200.gif&ct=g

 

[pecksniff]

Face it: Durham's investigations will never lead to anything that incriminates Clinton's campaign or exonerates Trump's.

 

[Rightguide]

Can't be the case wasnt proven

Lmao...

You're so fucking predictable.

Partly because of the judge limited the evidence that could be shown to the Jury and made questionable rulings favorable to the defense.

 

[ll74]

Partly because of the judge limited the evidence that could be shown to the Jury and made questionable rulings favorable to the defense.

Yes, I get that you blame everyone else for Durham not making the case.

He didn't make the case because there wasn't one to make.

 

[pecksniff]

Partly because of the judge limited the evidence that could be shown to the Jury and made questionable rulings favorable to the defense.

Durham had the opportunity to object to the judge and move for his recusal.

 

[Rightguide]

Durham had the opportunity to object to the judge and move for his recusal.

Probably not on those grounds.

 

[pecksniff]

Probably not on those grounds.

What you are complaining about is the judge's alleged ties to partisan Democrats. Of course Durham could have objected on those grounds. If the judge made questionable rulings, that is a matter for appeal.

 

[Rightguide]

What you are complaining about is the judge's alleged ties to partisan Democrats. Of course Durham could have objected on those grounds. If the judge made questionable rulings, that is a matter for appeal.

Maybe he has received orders from Garland. He should have booted those three jurors as well. The fact is there are two tiers of justice in D.C. The most difficult thing to do in DC is to convict a Democrat.

 

[pecksniff]

Maybe he has received orders from Garland.

Not even you believe that.

 

[Rightguide]

Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia​

Former officials now question why Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not report the Clinton campaign link​

By Brooke Singman | Fox News

WASHINGTON – Key allegations that tied then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia and led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller originated with individuals linked to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, with former officials now questioning why Mueller’s team of seasoned prosecutors didn't report those connections as part of their years-long probe.

During the trial of Michael Sussmann — the first trial stemming from Special Counsel John Durham’s years-long investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe — Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified that Hillary Clinton herself approved the dissemination of unproven and subsequently debunked information to the media alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Those allegations fell at the center of the Sussmann trial, as Sussmann had been charged with making a false statement to the FBI when he brought that information to FBI General Counsel James Baker on Sept. 19, 2016, and allegedly claimed he was not doing work on behalf of any client, but rather bringing the data as a citizen concerned with national security. Sussmann Monday was found not guilty by a jury.

Durham’s team alleged that Sussmann was, in fact, doing work for two clients: the Hillary Clinton campaign and a technology executive, Rodney Joffe. Following the meeting with Baker, Durham claimed Sussmann billed the Hillary Clinton campaign for his work.

The FBI ultimately opened an investigation into that information, and, according to Baker’s testimony last week, the FBI found that, after weeks of investigating, "there was nothing there."

More here:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...inton-campaign-plotted-to-tie-trump-to-russia

 

[pecksniff]

Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia​

​

This is known as "framing the guilty party."

 

[Rightguide]

This is known as "framing the guilty party."

Your post is known as whistling past the graveyard.

 

[pecksniff]

Your post is known as whistling past the graveyard.

I am not the least bit frightened by anything Durham is doing. Nothing that matters has come of it and nothing will. And you know it.

 

[ll74]

So now we're realizing that Durham is ready to close up shop..time to blame Mueller!

 

[zipman]

I see that the whiners are still pretending they're victims.

Maybe they should call a crappy lawyer or a pillow maker to help make their case?

 

[Rotadom]

Time for Merrick Garland to Fire John Durham​

https://newrepublic.com/maz/article/166668/merrick-garland-fire-john-durham

The special prosecutor that former Attorney General
Bill Barr left behind has stunk up the DOJ for far too long.​

Michael Tomasky​

June 2, 2022​

The great guessing game in Washington about Merrick Garland has been whether he’ll prosecute Donald Trump.
That’s an excellent question, but its resolution is likely a bit down the road—certainly after the House select committee
finishes its hearings on the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In the meantime, here’s something Garland can do today that is, if anything, more open and shut than a Trump prosecution.
Fire John Durham. Now.
The special prosecutor named by Bill Barr to “get to the bottom” of the “deep state” “conspiracy” didn’t just lose his case this week in the prosecution of Hillary Clinton aide Michael Sussman—he got his ass handed to him on a stick. The jury deliberated for a mere six hours, and based on the quotes from jurors that appeared in the news stories, it sounds like they may have spent four of those hours talking about the Stranger Things season four debut. “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted,” the jury forewoman said, noting the government “could have spent our time more wisely.” A second juror told The Washington Post that in the jury room, “Everyone pretty much saw it the same way.”
This is a major humiliation not just for Durham but for Barr, Trump, and everyone else who subscribed to the whole verkakte theory that it was Clinton, not Trump, who had the real Russia ties and that she—along with Barack Obama and this X-Files version of a “deep state” they tried to will into existence from their own fever dreams—engaged in a witch hunt against Trump that made Watergate look like Mr. McAllister stealing that high school election from Tracy Flick. Remember Trump tweeting, with zero evidence, that Obama was spying on his campaign?
That tweet set off an endless round of madness on the right, contending that it was really the Democrats who cheated in 2016. It would be laughable if it weren’t so evil. Trump has the conscience of … well, I was going to name some lower invertebrate, but that would be an insult to lower inverterbrates, since lower inverterbrates don’t lie without compunction specifically to distract people from their own corrupt behavior. Lower invertebrates also don’t typically get powerful figures to endlessly repeat their bogus claims: I saw a clip this morning of Jim Jordan scowling that Obama had spied on Trump not only as candidate but as president.
Naturally, Jordan didn’t provide any information or evidence about how a former president might have managed to get the federal government to spy on a sitting president, but I’m sure he has an answer to that one. That’s the thing about conspiracy theorists who don’t deal in facts: Everything can always be explained by an even darker and deeper conspiracy yet to be plumbed. Just last week, the right dropped a brand new one about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where Salvador Ramos was obviously hired by the left to mess up the NRA convention.
That’s the sort nonsense that gets repeated and retweeted on social media platforms. But in an actual court of law, where evidence matters, Durham could not prove that Sussman lied to the FBI about taking Trump-related information to the bureau. He said he acted alone. Durham’s prosecutors argued that he was acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In other words, as soon as this conspiracy theory came in contact with a court of law, poof! It all went up in smoke.
Barr first appointed Durham to look into these deep-state charges in May 2019. Then, in December 2020, just before he skedaddled out the door, Barr officially appointed him special prosecutor. It’s worth remembering these details: Barr’s been getting a little too much credit for being unwilling to help Trump steal the election. Let’s not forget his earlier instances of waging a corrupt battle against the malign forces of secularism as part of his holy war.

 

[ll74]

Time for Merrick Garland to Fire John Durham​

https://newrepublic.com/maz/article/166668/merrick-garland-fire-john-durham

I'm not sure he can, but I don't see the point. His investigation has run its course and will be concluded shortly.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not sure he can, but I don't see the point. His investigation has run its course and will be concluded shortly.

Rick Grenell former DNI this morning: Comey needs to be prosecuted, I've seen the evidence and gave it to Durham.

 

[ll74]

Rick Grenell former DNI this morning: Comey needs to be prosecuted, I've seen the evidence and gave it to Durham.

Lol....good luck with that.

 

[pecksniff]

Rick Grenell former DNI this morning: Comey needs to be prosecuted, I've seen the evidence and gave it to Durham.

Did he say why?

 

[Rightguide]

'Winning the war': Ratcliffe says Durham can 'expand' indictments after Sussmann trial​

by Daniel Chaitin, Deputy News Editor |
| June 05, 2022 11:42 AM
| Updated Jun 05, 2022, 01:21 PM

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe voiced confidence in special counsel John Durham after the prosecutor lost the high-profile case against Democratic cybersecurity lawyer Michael Sussmann.

The Trump-era spy chief made a prediction on Fox News's Sunday Morning Futures that Durham setting his focus on British ex-spy Christopher Steele's now-discredited anti-Trump dossier will serve as a turning point after critics piled on when the Sussmann trial ended in acquittal.

"I’m optimistic that not only will he [Durham] be successful in some of the ongoing prosecutions, but can expand the indictments that he wants to bring given the involvement of certain FBI officials in spreading a false narrative to the American people," Ratcliffe told anchor Maria Bartiromo.

"We learned that a senior FBI agent involved in the Trump-Russia investigation, Joe Pientka, sent a note to another agent about the Alfa-Bank tip: 'People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server. Reachout and put tools on ... it's not an option — we must do it.' The FBI building's seventh floor is where top management, including then-Director James Comey, had offices," the Washington Examiner's Byron York wrote Tuesday.

Durham has one other active prosecution: a case against Igor Danchenko, a key source for British ex-spy Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier, who has pleaded not guilty to five counts of making false statements to the FBI about the information he provided to the former MI6 agent for his discredited dossier. That trial is slated to start in October in Virginia.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...expects-more-indictments-after-sussmann-trial

 

[ll74]

Can't wait for the excuses when Durham closes up shop without more indictments.

 

[pecksniff]

'Winning the war': ​

Disturbing metaphor, that.