Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Durham reveals Clinton lawyer lied to the FBI (Update: He was acquitted.)

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatormonk, Apr 5, 2022.

  1. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    3,211
    593
    1,963
    Apr 3, 2007
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    4,085
    266
    243
    Jun 1, 2007
    So a jury that evidently thought the trial was bogus to begin with didn't think the state proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a shocker.
     
  3. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    10,903
    1,157
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    A group that thinks that the government didn't prove their case doesn't think the government should have wasted everybody's time (which is what Durham did, given that he couldn't prove a crime)? Shocker.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    3,382
    242
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Yes, he was because the jury bought his defense that the FBI leadership knew Sussmann was actually representing the DNC or Clinton Campaign and did not care.

    So which is worse, the FBI was lied to or the FBI knew they were taking oppo from the Clinton Campaign or DNC to investigate the Trump Campaign?
     
  5. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    3,211
    593
    1,963
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bizarre.

    The jury said the FBI was not lied to, so your dichotomy kinda falls apart. As far as taking oppo, the OIG stated it's entirely prudent to do so.

    You seem really dug in.

    "In a perfectly rational world, people who encounter evidence that challenges their beliefs would first evaluate this evidence, and then adjust their beliefs accordingly. However, in reality this is seldom the case.

    Instead, when people encounter evidence that should cause them to doubt their beliefs, they often reject this evidence, and strengthen their support for their original stance. This occurs due to a cognitive bias known as the backfire effect."

    The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don’t Always Change Minds – Effectiviology
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    he doesn’t believe the jury got it right obviously. If he did he’d have to admit he’s been wrong for months on this stuff. Seems unlikely. And obviously to his other point he still thinks all the investigations that sprung from the sussman fbi interaction was a politically motivated witch hunt. In reality it just looks like a poorly run investigation on the fbis part by some inexperienced employees but bottom line despite what the yahoos will tell you Durham has found exactly zero in a 3 year investigation and about the only thing he’s done is ruin his credibility when he said out loud that the ig conclusion that the fbi had done it’s job was wrong, without any evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2022
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    3,382
    242
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    So if Sussmann’s did not lie, what does that tell you?
     
  8. pkaib01

    pkaib01 Premium Member

    3,211
    593
    1,963
    Apr 3, 2007
    That he was rightfully acquitted?
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  9. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    It tells us nothing. The fbi investigated and then dropped it when they found no merit. Which is exactly what they would have done if Clinton herself made the accusation in a press conference.