Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatormonk, Apr 5, 2022.
Misinformation by omission is his MO. Time and time again.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
So if Sussmann’s did not lie, what does that tell you?
That he was rightfully acquitted?
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.