| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 7:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So now we have Mr Smith assigned to Trump cases. He was the idiot that charged a dem vp candidate for using campaign funds for his mistress. (gee stormy daniels and the other when he stayed quiet.
Here is a bit of background on Smith a special counsel...
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-vets-gain-power-in-biden-garland-doj-159907909567
Trump vets gain power in Biden-Garland DOJ
| Quote: | | Attorney General Garland taps a Trump-appointed prosecutor as special counsel to investigate classified documents found at President Biden's home and old office. MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent, Ari Melber reports on Garland’s approach and its potential problems and pitfalls. |
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-s-doj-nemesis-indicted-presidents-mafia-before-job-deciding-trump-indictment-i-msnbc-report-160141893714
Trump's DOJ nemesis indicted presidents, mafia before job deciding Trump indictment I MSNBC report
| Quote: |
Feared from warzones to Congress, special counsel Jack Smith is now leading two Trump investigations. In this special report, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber shows you how Trump’s DOJ nemesis has prosecuted the mafia, police, politicians and even dictators. You will see rare footage of Jack Smith and highlights from his big wins like the Giuliani NYPD case and a big loss in the John Edwards trial. Melber reports on Smith saying there is no “expiration date on accountability” and what that could mean in his probes of Trump. Part one of this special report is also available online. |
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-s-doj-nemesis-indicted-presidents-before-taking-special-counsel-job-i-msnbc-report-part-1-160136261553
Trump's DOJ nemesis indicted presidents before taking special counsel job I MSNBC report part 1
| Quote: |
In a special “Beat” report, MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber reports on accountability in the insurrection era as questions remain about whether former Trump aide Rudy Giuliani will face charges for his role in the January 6th insurrection. Melber examines political pressures at play and refers to an old case from Giuliani’s time as the mayor of New York City. Part two of this special report is also available online. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fake investigation... Italians said they had evidence that Trump broke the law... Obviously this should have been public.. we have a right to know.
can't we just have some more Hillary investigations?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-judiciary-mulls-action-amid-fallout-from-durham-probe/ar-AA16U5rx?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=3c77cdecd51247f5a393f6c6c0992e08
Senate Judiciary mulls action amid fallout from Durham probe
| Quote: | The Senate Judiciary Committee is pledging to review the actions of former special counsel John Durham following reports of inappropriate handling of his probe into the investigation of former President Trump.
Senate Judiciary mulls action amid fallout from Durham probe
Recent reporting from The New York Times detailed ethical concerns during the probe that prompted numerous staff departures, including concerns over former Attorney General Bill Barr’s involvement in the investigation as well as the decision to proceed to trial with insufficient evidence.
The report also revealed that the Justice Department obscured the nature of the criminal aspect of the probe, failing to disclose that it concerned Trump’s financial dealings rather than misconduct related to the initial investigation into the former president’s ties to Russia.
“These reports about abuses in Special Counsel Durham’s investigation — so outrageous that even his longtime colleagues quit in protest — are but one of many instances where former President Trump and his allies weaponized the Justice Department,” committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a statement.
“The Justice Department should work on behalf of the American people, not for the personal benefit of any president. As we wait for the results of ongoing internal reviews, the Senate Judiciary Committee will do its part and take a hard look at these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure such abuses of power cannot happen again,” he added.
Related video: Report exposes Durham as tool of Barr's political weaponization of DOJ (MSNBC)
John Durham, it seems, found no evidence of what Bill Barr had called
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment, and Durham and Barr did not respond to the Times story.
According to the report, after connecting with Italian officials who denied any involvement in relaying information for the Russian investigation, Barr expanded Durham’s authority to include criminal prosecution powers after receiving a credible tip about possible financial crimes related to Trump.
But Barr’s vague commentary left it unclear that the criminal component of the investigation was not focused on those who initiated the probe of the former president.
In other cases, subordinates questioned Durham’s efforts to gain evidence on the leader of a George Soros-connected organization and Barr’s public comments about the investigation.
“The evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here,” Barr said in April of 2020.
Staff also bristled as Durham prepared to prosecute Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented Democrats as they met with the FBI during the probe into Trump’s Russia dealings. Two employees said Durham didn’t have enough solid evidence to bring charges, and ultimately left the team. Sussmann would later be acquitted in a court defeat for Durham. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is a good read as long as it is...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/durham-s-dud-is-worse-than-it-looks-and-now-trump-suddenly-doesn-t-want-to-talk-witch-hunts/ar-AA176w2v?cvid=9a25a4999f4a49fe89a09ca41fa75004&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Durham's dud is worse than it looks — and now Trump suddenly doesn't want to talk witch hunts
| Quote: | The thing that you've got to remember about Trump, bless his black heart, is that his obsessions invariably take him to places he would rather not have gone. In fact, the entire reason John Durham was ever appointed by Attorney General William Barr as a Special Counsel to look into the origins of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation in the first place had to do with Trump's obsessions. He was obsessed that the entire thing, which he famously and repeatedly called the Russia! Russia! Russia! witch hunt, was a plot by the FBI to get him. So, Trump had Barr appoint Durham to investigate the investigators. Put another way, Trump weaponized the Justice Department to pursue his perceived enemies in the FBI, beginning with his nemesis James Comey, the former head who first opened the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia way back in July of 2016.
The Durham investigation, as it became known over the last four years, has been in the news a lot recently. Durham was appointed in May 2019 to investigate the so-called Crossfire Hurricane FBI counterintelligence investigation, as well as the Mueller investigation, which ran from May 2017 to March 2019. A year into Durham's investigation, at a Department of Justice press conference, then-attorney general Barr said what he was trying to do was "get to the bottom of what happened in 2016," which is interesting in and of itself, because the only investigation taking place in 2016 was the FBI's.
Durham wasted four years — twice as long as Mueller's probe — and God-only-knows how many taxpayer dollars without convicting anyone of wrongdoing (he lost both cases he brought to court) or establishing the conspiracy Trump and Barr had long said lay behind the Russia investigation. Our first clue is the date in Barr's statement above: 2016. Trump was convinced that the FBI, and in particular James Comey, was out to get him. Trump put Comey through what amounted to a loyalty test soon after he took office, inviting him to dinner, and while Comey was there, under the influence of the splendor of the White House and the power of being in Trump's presence, asking him if he could go easy on Michael Flynn, who had resigned as Trump's national security adviser the previous day when it became known that he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December of 2016. Comey demurred, and Flynn went on to be indicted and convicted of lying to the FBI about the same matter. Trump apparently never forgave Comey, especially after Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee the following month that the Trump campaign had secretly been under investigation since July 2016. Trump fired him just two months later, on May 9, and was infuriated when he found out that Comey had flown on a government jet back to Washington after his termination.
Related
The Durham investigation is a flop — but Donald Trump just can't quit the conspiracy
One of the curious things that came out in the New York Times story about how the Durham investigation eventually "unraveled" was the tale of Barr joining Durham in 2019 on a trip to London and Rome as part of Durham's probe into the roots of the Russia investigation. That the two men had made the trip overseas had been previously known. The new detail that emerged in the recent Times report was that while in Rome, Italian authorities had given the two men a "tip" that Trump was involved in some sort of financial improprieties. What the possible improprieties may have been was not explained by the Times, and there the mystery sat until Barr, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, confirmed that he had assigned Durham to criminally investigate the matter without informing anyone that a potential financial crimes investigation into Trump had been added to Durham's responsibilities. What the tip consisted of remains unknown. Barr claimed to the Los Angeles Times that it didn't amount to anything and wasn't pursued further.
Durham wasted four years — twice as long as Mueller's probe — and God-only-knows how many taxpayer dollars without convicting anyone of wrongdoing
And there the entire matter of Barr's and Durham's big European adventure stood until I cast an eye through my files at what was going on in London and Rome in 2016 that would have precipitated their overseas trip, where they met with intelligence and law enforcement officials in both countries. The British and Italian officials were said to have been perplexed by the requests from such high-level American law enforcement officials for help with the Durham investigation and denied that their governments had anything to do with what the Times called "setting off the Russia investigation."
And they didn't.
What set off the Russia investigation was actions taken by one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers in both Rome and London. Why the Trump campaign had one of its advisers in Rome and London, and why that official was in contact with a person with close ties to Russia would turn out to be the question that got the FBI involved.
Recall Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. His contact in both Rome and London was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese national who was involved with something called Link Campus University which had a presence in both cities. Mifsud also claimed to be a professor at the University of Stirling in Scotland and the London Academy of Diplomacy. As part of his involvement with these academic institutions, Mifsud apparently found it necessary to travel frequently to Russia where he became friendly with a man called Ivan Timofeev, a director of the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, as well as the Russian International Affairs Council. According to what Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Timofeev had the ear of Vladimir Putin, and might be able to set up a meeting between Putin and Donald Trump. Papadopoulos reported this back to campaign headquarters in New York and was told by Steve Bannon to keep pursuing the possibility.
Trump's attempt to bring disrepute to the Mueller report by getting Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate the investigators has backfired spectacularly.
It was quite a pursuit. Papadopoulos continued to meet here and there with the mysterious Mifsud. I say mysterious because Mifsud's connections to these purported academic institutions and think tanks, like the ones run by Timofeev, have never been fully explained. But I've got a potential explanation: Russian intelligence frequently uses academic institutions, conferences, and think tanks as fronts for gathering intelligence around the world. Colleges and universities are innocuous. People go there to learn about diplomacy and international relations. Same with conferences, like the one Papadopoulos attended in Rome that was held by Link Campus University, where he said he met this "Professor" Mifsud.
Papadopoulos met with Mifsud when he returned to London, and this is where the FBI comes in. At a breakfast, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from a conference in Moscow where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton they might be willing to share with the Trump campaign. And what do you know, but the man Mifsud was breakfasting with was an official of that very campaign! Mifsud also introduced Papadopoulos to a woman he claimed was Putin's niece. Mifsud had established his bona fides with his trips to Moscow and his connections to think tank directors like Timofeev. Papadopoulos was impressed enough that at a bar one night, he bragged to an Australian diplomat that he had learned the Russians had dirt on Clinton. The diplomat turned right around and reported his conversation with Papadopoulos to his embassy. The Australian embassy then contacted the American embassy. The American embassy then contacted the FBI in Washington.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
There were four key elements in the report from London: a Trump campaign official, dirt, Clinton, and Russians. That was more than enough to start an investigation right there, and the FBI did just that.
Barr appointed Durham to investigate the origins of the Mueller report after he had done his best to bury it with his phony announcement before the report even came out, claiming that Mueller had found no "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia. If that was true, however, why was there a need for the Durham investigation? Well, it was to discredit the Mueller report, and that needed to be done for a couple of reasons. The first was the fact that Mueller had found eight separate instances when Trump appeared to have attempted to obstruct justice by interfering with the Russia investigation. That was definitely a bad thing, but it was no danger to Trump, as Mueller did not make a recommendation that Trump be indicted because sitting presidents cannot face federal indictments, according to a standing Justice Department policy.
So what was the big worry?
Durham went after the Mueller investigation and ended up finding out that there actually was good cause for the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign's connections with Russians
Mueller had indicted and convicted several Trump people such as Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, but only for lying to the FBI. He had also indicted and convicted in absentia 25 Russians for interfering with the 2016 election. Thirteen of them were Russian nationals working for the Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Petersburg. They were charged with conspiring to interfere with the U.S. elections and identity theft. Also indicted in this group was the owner of the IRA, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a man known as "Putin's chef." More on him in a bit. Twelve of the indicted Russians were agents in the Russian intelligence agency, the GRU, who were charged and convicted of conspiracy to hack and distribute key Democrats' emails, including those of Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta.
Note that all the indictments of Russians had to do with computer crimes – hacking, assuming false identities, and distribution of disinformation via social media – in a conspiracy to influence the election.
When the FBI began to investigate Papadopoulos for his claims that he knew that the Russians had dirt on Clinton, his connections to Russian were tenuous, but they were there in the person of a non-Russian, Mifsud, who had plenty of connections to Russians. So, the FBI interviewed Mifsud, too - and here is where it gets interesting.
John Solomon is a right-wing commentator who had worked for The Washington Examiner and The Hill and who would go on to play a key role in defending Trump during his impeachment for attempting to extort the president of Ukraine into helping Trump defeat Joe Biden. In the summer of 2018, Solomon was working for The Hill and wrote a column attempting to take apart Mueller's case against Papadopoulos. In the column, he made multiple references to Mifsud. Somehow he got access to the FBI interviews with Mifsud. He reported that Mifsud had described his contacts with Papadopoulos as "innocuous," and denied the bit about Hillary Clinton and the Russians having dirt on her. According to Solomon, in Mifsud's words, he was "collaborating for a number of years on a number of geo-strategic issues, mainly pertaining to publications/training for diplomats/international experts on energy security and their implications on international relations." All he was doing was putting people together, "bridging" between them he called it, and Papadopoulos was just one of those people.
But the mysterious Mifsud, whose passport and wallet were found in Portugal in August of 2017 and who has been missing since then, went on and on to the FBI about a curious subject: cybersecurity.
Related
Durham investigation goes bust: Bill Barr blew up mission to expose the deep state — to save Trump
"The intent of that 'bridging' was specifically of a geo-political nature and not tied in any way or form to cybersecurity," he told the FBI in an interview. Afterward, Mifsud went to the trouble of writing an email to the FBI, just to make sure they got what he was telling them. According to Solomon, "at one point in his email, he bold-faced a single sentence for emphasis: 'Cybersecurity was never the direct object of any of our communications,'" in reference to Papadopoulos. What cybersecurity had to do with Papadopoulos, or Mifsud's contacts with Russians, or anything else for that matter, was never explained by Mifsud, although the Mueller report might be consulted for an answer, as the 25 Russians he indicted were all charged with offenses that might be described as dealing with cybersecurity: hacking and using social media manipulation. Thirteen of those Russians were agents for the GRU, and 11 of them worked for Yevgeny Prigozhin, and one was Prigozhin himself. If his name sounds familiar, it should. He's currently in the news as the owner of the Wagner Group, the gang of ex-cons and mercenaries that have been fighting in Eastern Ukraine as part of Putin's army. Prigozhin has been close to Putin since he was, indeed, Putin's chef years ago.
John Solomon's name should also be familiar. In his career as a right-wing commentator who spent a lot of his time trying to poke holes in the Mueller report and defending Trump from charges that he tried to extort the president of a foreign country, Ukraine, Solomon was in frequent contact with Lev Parnas, a friend of Trump who has since been indicted for several felonies after being arrested at Dulles Airport with a one-way ticket to Austria. But, hey! Not to worry! Solomon landed on his feet when he was appointed, along with Kash Patel (currently a target of Special Counsel Jack Smith) as Trump's representative to the National Archives, where both he and Patel have been involved in defending Trump from charges that he mishandled classified information stored at Mar-a-Lago.
Oh, what a web is woven when you start digging. Durham went after the Mueller investigation and ended up finding out that there actually was good cause for the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign's connections with Russians. Go figure. Trump's attempt to bring disrepute to the Mueller report by getting Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate the investigators has backfired spectacularly. Two indictments of minor characters, two not-guilty findings by juries, several resignations from the special counsel staff in protest over Durham's methods, and no holes whatsoever blown in the Mueller investigation.
Kind of reminds you of all the lawsuits Trump has filed that have either been thrown out of court or resulted in serious judgments against him, the most recent having produced a million-dollar fine against him and his lawyer for misusing the federal courts by filing an entirely frivolous lawsuit. All that's come out of the Durham investigation is an example of what weaponizing an agency of the federal government looks like, up close and personal |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mueller-prosecutor-asks-why-john-durham-spent-200k-on-travel-in-six-months/ar-AA18Ss46?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=e3884e7bf6b54ec3ccc82d777b87efdb&ei=4
Mueller prosecutor asks why John Durham spent $200K on travel in six months
| Quote: | Donald Trump's attorney general, Bill Barr, appointed special counsel John Durham to "investigate the investigators." It was all part of Trump's demand to probe Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russia scandal that resulted in the indictment of 34 people.
Official portrait.
Official portrait.
© Raw Story
Durham never found any wrongdoing in Mueller's investigation, and even his indictments were dismissed. One former FBI agent pleaded guilty to giving a false statement. He never went to prison.
Documents on the Justice Department website detail the accounting of how the $2,076,068 Durham budget was spent. According to one excerpt, Durham spent over $200,000 on travel expenditures during the six months that he should have been preparing for trial, remarked former Mueller prosecutor on Twitter.
"Why is Durham investigation spending over $200,000 on travel in a 6-month period in 2022, especially since they were supposed to be in DC (preparing to lose their second of two federal cases)?" Andrew Weissmann asked.
From April 1, 2022, to Sept. 30, 2022, Durham columnists were already writing that he was being humiliated.
In the middle of Sept. 2022, CNN reported that Durham's own prosecutors were already jumping ship.
"Top Durham prosecutor Andrew DeFilippis – who led the team’s case against a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer earlier this year, which ended in a swift acquittal – was supposed to handle another trial next month, but instead is leaving the Justice Department for a job at a private law firm," CNN said citing its sources. "DeFilippis in recent months was at one point working on writing a report on Durham’s findings, which will be submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland."
While there isn't a final report from Durham's team that has become public, the way that there was in Mueller's case, Durham has resigned from the position, having failed in his task. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2023 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
BS, what a sham in his latest. With we know that Flynn was convicted of working for the russians and lying about it.
We know that Carter Page was convicted for working for the russians and lied about it. We know that Carter Page had his first Fisa warrant well before he ever met and trump person.
again just those two facts show that this Durum was in lala land with his 4 year or so investigation. Not one grand jury indictment I ever saw... Not one. Just like Supreme court judge rappy, Kavanaugh when he was with Kenny Boy Starr (Starr who was involved in defending Epstein, again I say any rich lawyer who defends the mass serial child rapist Epstein has to be a pediophile rapist themselves) But Supreme judge rappy did not get one grand jury indictment on the Clintons in what the clintons has a special prosecutor allowed to investigate anything for 6 or more years?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-claimed-the-durham-probe-would-uncover-the-crime-of-the-century-here-s-what-it-really-found/ar-AA1be2LG?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=1ddf61527a924435869fd3a327a631a0&ei=20
Trump claimed the Durham probe would uncover the 'crime of the century.' Here's what it really found
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14874
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a moron, 4 years and he does not know if the russians influenced the election with stealing the DNC emails and releasing them and he did not investigate it. That trump used that info over 100 times in campaign events.
He agreed the investigations began after a representative from Australian reported to the US governemtn about a conversation a trump top guy said to an Australian diplomat that the russians had stollen information and would weaponize it against Clinton. And on that it would have been derelict not to investigate russia attacking americans.
Here is more...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/ozempic-wegovy-maker-begins-legal-proceedings-against-certain-med-spas-clinics-compounding-pharmacies/ar-AA1cOfka?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=6d61b5c0ea8e4e3fe84155c3a7500c03&ei=7
Adam Schiff Grills John Durham on Trump Russia Coordination: ‘You Really Don’t Know Those Very Basic Facts?!’
| Quote: | Though the year is 2023, viewers of a House Judiciary hearing featuring Special Counsel John Durham may have felt they traveled back in time to 2018.
For five straight and stunning minutes, Rep. Adam Schiff — one of the most vocal critics of the former president — relitigated the Mueller report findings in a manner that clearly indicated that the Trump campaign did coordinate with Russian election interference efforts directed by Vladimir Putin.
The hearing was established by House Republicans as a public airing of the much-cited Durham Report as a means to illustrate the “two tiers of justice” so often claimed by surrogates and allies of former President Donald Trump, who has been criminally charged in to separate investigations, with a few more pending.
As is typically the case in these sorts of hearings, Schiff appeared more interested in the questions he asked instead of the answers he elicited, but that doesn’t mean that the California Democrat was ineffective in his interrogation.
Quite the contrary: Durham was forced to admit that he greatly respected Robert Mueller and found nothing that diminished his investigation. Durham also seemed to squirm uncomfortably when forced to adjudge whether Donald Trump, Jr.’s reception to Russia offering dirt on Hillary Clinton interference violated campaign laws.
Below is a transcript of the back and forth.
Schiff: Mr. Durham. Just so people remember what this is all about. Let me ask you. The Mueller investigation revealed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systemic fashion, correct?
Durham: That’s correct.
Schiff: And Russia did so through a social media campaign that favored Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton. Correct?
Durham: The report says yes.
Schiff: And Mueller found that a Russian intelligence service hacked computers associated with the Clinton campaign and then released the stolen documents publicly. Is that right?
Durham: That report speaks for itself as well.
Schiff: Mueller also reported that though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also
said, quote, a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of those
facts and also appears in the report, doesn’t it?
Durham: Is the language of that, in fact. Yes.
Schiff: In fact, you cited that very statement in your own report, did you not, as a way of distinguishing between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence that falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
Durham: Correct.
Schiff: As an illustration of this, both Mueller and congressional investigations found that Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was secretly meeting with an operative linked to Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik. Correct?
Durham: That’s my understanding, yes.
Schiff: And that Manafort, well, chairman of the Trump campaign, gave that Russian intelligence operative the campaign’s internal polling data. Correct?
Durham: That’s what I’ve read in the news. Yes.
Schiff: And that Manafort provided this information to Russian intelligence while Russian intelligence was engaged in that social media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help the Trump campaign. Correct.
Durham: You may be getting beyond her, to my knowledge, but.
Schiff: Well, let me let me say very simply. While Manafort, the campaign chairman for Donald Trump, was giving this Russian intelligence officer internal campaign polling data, Russian intelligence was helping the Trump campaign, weren’t they?
Durham: I don’t know that.
Schiff: You really don’t know those very basic facts of the investigation.
Durham: I know the general facts. Yes. Do I know that particular fact myself? No. I mean, I know that I’ve read that in the media anywhere.
Schiff: Mr. Durham, that Mueller and congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. Was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump campaign, quote, very high level and sensitive information, unquote, that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton was part of, quote, Russia and its government support of Mr. trump were that.
Durham: Sure, people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that. Really?
Schiff: This son of a presidential candidate gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt on their important opponent. Is that what you’re saying?
Durham: I don’t think that’s such a unique in your experience.
Schiff: So you you have other instances of the Russian government offering dirt on a presidential candidate to the presidential candidate’s son. So you’re saying.
Durham: Would you repeat the question?
Schiff: You said that it’s not uncommon to get offers of help from a hostile foreign government, a presidential campaign directed at the president’s son. You really stand by that, Mr. Durham.
Durham: Saying that it that people can make phone calls, making claims all the time, that you may have been.
Schiff: Really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that the president said son set up in Trump Tower to receive that incriminating information and trying to diminish the significant significance of that.
Durham: They’re not trying to diminish at all, but I think the more complete story is that they met and it was a ruse and they didn’t talk about Mrs. Clinton.
Schiff: And you think it’s insignificant that he had a secret meeting with the Russian delegation for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton? And the only disappointment expressed in the meeting was that the dirt they got wasn’t better. You don’t think that’s significant?
Durham: I don’t think that that was well-advised thing to do.
Schiff: Oh, not well advised. All right. Well, that’s that’s the understatement of the year. So you think it’s perfectly appropriate or or maybe just ill advised for a presidential campaign to secretly meet with a Russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent? You would merely say that’s inadvisable.
Durham: If you’re asking me what I do and I hope I wouldn’t do it, but it was not illegal, was it? Was stupid, foolish, ill advised.
Schiff: Well, it is illegal to conspire to get incriminating opposition research from a hostile government that is of financial value to a campaign. Wouldn’t that violate campaign laws?
Durham: I don’t know. I don’t know all those facts to be true.
Schiff: Well, your report. Mr. Durham doesn’t dispute anything Mueller found. Did it?
Durham: No. Our object. Our aim was not to dispute Director Mahler. I have the greatest regard. High regard for Director Mueller. He’s a patriot. Schiff: We only distinguish between his investigation and yours is he refused to bring charges where he couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And you did? I yield back.
Watch above via Fox News. |
https://www.rawstory.com/adam-schiff-john-durham/
Adam Schiff dismantles John Durham: Just call it 'good old-fashioned GOP cheating with the enemy'
| Quote: | Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) took on former special counsel John Durham at a hearing on his investigation into the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Throughout a House Oversight hearing on Wednesday, Durham rarely went against Republican claims that there was no "collusion" between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.
"So let's break this down," Schiff said before asking Durham if he remembered relevant portions of special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
"Mr. Durham, you're aware of Donald Trump's public statements along the lines of, hey, Russia, if you're listening, hack Hillary's emails, you'll be richly rewarded by the press," the lawmaker reminded the witness.
"I'm aware of that," Durham admitted.
"You're aware that Mueller found that hours after he made that plea for Russian help, the Russians, in fact, tried to hack one of the email servers affiliated with the Clinton campaign or family?" Schiff pressed.
"If that happened, I'm not aware of that," the former special counsel replied.
ADVERTISEMENT
"You're not aware of that in the Mueller report?" Schiff gasped. "When you say you're not aware of evidence of collusion in the Mueller report, it's because apparently you haven't read the Mueller report very well."
"I'm not aware of that fact," Durham repeated.
After a barrage of questions recalling how Russia worked to benefit the Trump campaign, Schiff concluded by offering a new definition of collusion.
"They don't want to call collusion," Schiff said of Republicans. "Maybe there's a better name for it. Maybe they would prefer we just call it good old-fashioned GOP cheating with the enemy. Maybe that would be a little bit more accurate description."
"Because this is what happened, but they seem allergic to calling it for what it is," he asserted.
Watch the video at this link. |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-not-a-victim-dem-congressman-slaps-down-john-durham-s-claims-to-his-face/ar-AA1cQj0f?cvid=70b289c9625f4b82b30f3136ce74a536&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
Trump is not a victim': Dem congressman slaps down John Durham's claims to his face
| Quote: | On Wednesday, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing with former special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Donald Trump's one-time attorney general William Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian ties to Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Ultimately, the Durham investigation — long hyped by Trump, Republican House leaders like Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), and their allies as ironclad proof that the earlier Robert Mueller probe was corrupt and political — was a flop, securing only one plea deal, a couple indictments that led to exoneration, and a recommendation of some minor process changes at the FBI, while failing to find any systemic bias or false conclusions in the Mueller investigation.
Judiciary Committee ranking member Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) pointed this out in a blistering opening statement before Durham was sworn in.
"At the end of the day, Mr. Durham never found what he was looking for," said Nadler. "He cannot dispute a single conclusion in the Mueller report. He cannot prove a magnificent 'deep state' conspiracy, he cannot say that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign's many ties to Russia never should've happened. And again, I can see why this would be disappointing to some. Instead of owning up to his failure, the Durham report doubles down on theories that lost spectacularly before two unanimous juries. The report also references classified material that's been called likely disinformation, played a series of accusations against the former president's perceived enemies. By presenting a so-called finding in this way, swiping a Republican bogeyman and hiding inconvenient truths in footnotes, the Durham report gives Donald Trump one last talking point."
READ MORE: Trump’s trial will soon be underway in Florida – here’s why prosecutors had little choice in selecting any other courthouse location
[Photos] 22 Inappropriate Red Carpet Moments
[Photos] 22 Inappropriate Red Carpet Moments
Ad
Psychic Monday
"It did not have to be this way," Nadler continued. "It may be hard to remember, but at the outset of the Durham investigation, Mr. Durham was a well-respected career prosecutor with a solid reputation. The attorney general is supposed to appoint the special counsel to prevent the appearance of politicization in a criminal investigation. Mr. Durham could well have lived up to that expectation. Instead, what we got is a political exercise that operated with ethical ambiguity and existed to perpetuate Donald Trump's unfounded claims. The investigation fulfilled its political objectives, but did real damage to a department that is still recovering from the excesses of the Trump administration. And despite his best efforts, a reckoning is well underway."
"Do not be misled," concluded Nadler. "Former President Donald Trump is not a victim. He did this to himself. For all of its flaws, the Durham report does not show that anyone else is responsible for the president's legal woes, past, present, or future. Anyone that tells you otherwise is simply making it up." |
https://youtu.be/RwW5h-q80xc
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jerry-nadler-excoriates-john-durham-for-fueling-maga-fantasy-of-anti-trump-deep-state-four-years-of-probing-for-one-conviction/ar-AA1cQz5S?ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbarhover&cvid=efaaa55a91084ee9bb029c74658ce3d9&ei=7
Jerry Nadler Excoriates John Durham for Fueling MAGA ‘Fantasy’ of Anti-Trump Deep State: Four Years of Probing for ‘One Conviction’
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
