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. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    11,018
    1,164
    708
    Apr 3, 2007
    Opus Dei
     
  2. wci347

    wci347 GC Hall of Fame

    How do you smear something that is already smeared? Is that like spreading peanut butter on peanut butter?
     
  3. wci347

    wci347 GC Hall of Fame

    Nothing has been proven because Trump learned from the Clinton playbook that if you get information on your enemies, you can keep them at bay. The only reason why Trump has survived this is that his wealth has enabled him to gain access to information that can be used against his adversaries. Everything becomes a lie when you shut down the people who can prove that it is not with information that could hurt them or their allies.
     
  4. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    6,774
    1,683
    3,203
    Sep 20, 2014
    Great analysis of the absurdity of the entire prosecution. We sometimes make the mistake of believing those at DOJ know more than we do and have better judgment.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/03/barr-unmasking-durham-probes-bogus/

    “Hours after the jury dismissed Durham’s bull, BuzzFeed published a previously secret Justice Department report, also ordered by Barr, in which Barr’s own DOJ concluded that the Obama administration didn’t intend to expose the identity of Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn “for political purposes or other inappropriate reasons.” It was further evidence that another favorite Trump claim enabled by Barr — that Obama officials engaged in illegal “unmasking” — was bunk.

The day after these twin repudiations of Barr’s fantasies, the hoaxster explained himself on Fox News — by arguing that Durham’s failure in court was in fact a triumph. “While he did not succeed in getting a conviction from the D.C. jury,” Barr said, “I think he accomplished something far more important.”
This is about as convincing as the Washington Nationals saying, “While we did not succeed in scoring a run for 27 innings, we think we accomplished something far more important.” In a courtroom, a prosecutor either wins or loses.
So what did Barr think was more important than Durham actually winning his case? “He crystallized the central role played by the Hillary campaign in launching, as a dirty trick, the whole Russiagate collusion narrative,” Barr said, and “he exposed really dreadful behavior by the supervisors in the FBI.

    “Barr’s argument, that the innuendo Durham spread is “far more important” than proving actual wrongdoing, unmasks Barr’s perverted view of justice. He didn’t tap Durham (or John Bash, who handled the unmasking probe) primarily to prosecute criminal behavior. He launched the inquiries to tell a political “story.”
“Part of this operation is to try to get the real story out,” Barr told Fox News. “And I have said from the beginning, you know, if we can get convictions, if they are achievable, then John Durham will achieve them. But, the other aspect of this is to get the story out.” Bringing a case for such a purpose violates Justice Department policy.”
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  5. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    11,018
    1,164
    708
    Apr 3, 2007
    Good stuff. And what's really irritating is that they didn't actually expose anything worthy of condemnation. Just grist for RW crap. But that does explain some of the office's filings, which seemed intent of getting stuff into the public record that could be used politically, even if counterproductive to actual prosecution
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. WC53

    WC53 GC Hall of Fame

    3,457
    933
    1,958
    Oct 17, 2015
    Old City
    The same could be said of all the voter fraud lawsuits. Winning is not the point. Maybe a few of the craziest lawyers believe it, but for the rest it is calculated to establish a narrative.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. mutz87

    mutz87 p=.06 VIP Member

    38,200
    33,767
    4,181
    Aug 30, 2014
    The rw machine has turned into nothing but a feedback loop being fueled by crap to spew crap.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    The resident expert in this thread reminds me of a quote I’ve seen several times:

    it aint what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just aint so.
     
  9. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    10,728
    4,370
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Barr of course ignores that the initiation of the investigation into the Trump campaign contacts with Russia has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, but with the Australian ambassadors report of his conversation with Papadopolous. And that was while the FBI was investigating the hack. You are correct that Barr’s memo lied about Mueller’s conclusions in the obstruction investigation and why charges were not filed. And it was misleading as to the conclusions about the contacts with the Russians— particularly the Trump Tower meeting and Stone’s contacts regarding the hacked emails. He knows that few actually will read the Mueller Report or Senate Select Committee Report. Mueller determines sufficient evidence to charge Trump with 3 actors of obstruction, but didn’t charge because of the DOJ guidance dating back to Agnew. That said, the article ignores that Garland has allows the Durham investigation to continue. But the investigation has little to do with the Clinton campaign.
     
  10. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    3,382
    242
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    You’re wrong. The quote you should be thinking of is: “It doesn’t matter what I know, it matter what I can prove.”

    The people operating at this level are very smart. They know how to minimize legal exposure. Example here is the fact that Sussmann requested a one on one with the general counsel of the FBI instead of line agents because he knew there would be no 302 of the conversation. Similar you how Joffe gave the report to Sussmann rather than giving it to his normal FBI handlers. These people know the law and know how to skirt it.

    I’m not even going to get into why Sussmann had an FBI/DOJ badge and didn’t need a visit access request (VAR) to get into secure spaces at the FBI.

    The thing I think you fail to realize is that Durham’s case against Sussmann tried to make the FBI out as the victim of Sussmann’s lie to the FBI. The jury said they didn’t believe that and the FBI leadership knew and acted in a way that showed they knew Sussmann was working for either the DNC or Clinton Campaign. Ouch.

    The FBI and more specifically the leadership team at the FBI at the time are the ones taking incoming right now. This is making them look terrible.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  11. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    4,096
    270
    243
    Jun 1, 2007
    Sure they're smart and they also know that no matter what, there's not a chance in hell any dem will ever be convicted of anything in the DC courts.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  12. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    10,728
    4,370
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Criminal prosecutions are supposed to be about crimes committed by those that are charged. We don’t charge innocent people, file briefs arguing conspiracies or joint ventures to prove relationships exist when, in fact, the alleged liar disclosed the relationship. All in order to make a political point. The fact that the FBI investigated the Alpha Bank allegations as part of the already initiated Russia investigation is not bothersome in any way. And while the FBI brass is accused of doing Hilary Clinton’s bidding, let’s remember that it was James Comey who violated FBI policy and federal law 2 weeks before the election and during early voting by announcing the email investigation. Barr’s statements to FOX were flat out false and a misuse of the DOJ.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    3,382
    242
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Do you doubt that Sussmann lied to Baker in the text message he sent him?

    I think you are coming around to a point I made several years ago. Comey is going to end up holding the bag for the FBI’s malpractice in 2016. The Left hates him because he allowed himself to get backed into a corner WRT Hillary’s server and had to inform Congress of the Huma’s laptop. The Right hates him because of how he allowed the Trump Russia Investigation to knee cap the Trump Admin for two years. He has no one to defend him and he is likely going to go down as the worse head of the FBI since Hoover.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2022
  14. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    Sussman was acquitted. Unanimously. It doesn’t matter what we suppose happened. In fact continuing to make the allegation when he has been proven not guilty in a court of law is kinda BS.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    4,096
    270
    243
    Jun 1, 2007
    Yeah, the jury was laser focused on the evidence presented. :eek:

    “Personally, I don’t think it should have been prosecuted because I think we have better time or resources to use or spend to other things that affect the nation as a whole than a possible lie to the FBI. We could spend that time more wisely,” said the foreperson of the jury in Sussmann’s case, according to Politico.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,161
    13,725
    3,163
    Jun 14, 2007
    LOL!

    Meanwhile, like 34 ppl wear prosecuted in oeder to squeeze Trump's nuts...

    Don't recall you crying foul over the overt weaponization of our criminal justice system, when the cross hairs were fixated on DJT, and all these convictions were mere collateral damage to the greater good ...

    :rolleyes:
     
  17. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    Lmfao. Of course that’s how conservatives want to play it. Didn’t get the verdict to support their narrative so we’ll just pretend the jury was biased.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. slayerxing

    slayerxing GC Hall of Fame

    3,665
    516
    2,078
    Aug 14, 2007
    of course in many of those cases there were actual convictions because there was actual wrongdoing.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  19. g8trjax

    g8trjax GC Hall of Fame

    4,096
    270
    243
    Jun 1, 2007
    Pretend? Wasn't me who put that jewel on the record.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    10,942
    1,164
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    Strangely, you didn't include the entire quote. Wonder why that is. Anyways, here is the rest of the quote:

    Sussmann acquitted on charge brought by special counsel Durham
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2