"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[get it to x]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/31/poli ... index.html

[PizzaSnake]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

Nope. Facts matter.

“ The Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported Sunday that President Donald Trump’s confiscation of the translator’s notes from a one-on-one conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2017 was “unusual.” This is incorrect. It was unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the annals of presidential history.

It is also truly unusual that Trump failed to bring in a note taker, along with his translator, during his meetings with Putin, as almost every other president has done when meeting with foreign heads of state since the end of World War II. Usually the note taker is an official or aide with deep background in the subject under discussion.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... -taker.amp


Notice any other memory issues? You might want to get that checked.

[MDlaxfan76]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

Except that there was such a meeting, in fact several such meetings...but no records of what was said. Never before has so much been hidden.

and get it to somewhere X, the Russian investigation revealed lots and lots of illegal actions, both by Russians and various Campaigns officials and others. But ultimately the obstruction succeeded in preventing all to be known. That, too, was a crime.

But hey, obviously you know exactly what Sussman did or did not say. Again, I'm not a lawyer...but it's pretty darn clear to me that if he really did lie to a straight question, as did Flynn twice, he should be prosecuted for such and found guilty...but it looks like that's not what happened. If not, then he shouldn't have been charged.

[a fan]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Which part? The part where he was pardoned because he was buds with Trump, and didn't have to deal with the consequences of his actions?

Were you ok with that? And if the answer is yes, I was fine with Trump's pardon for Flynn.....you know what the next question is, right?

[a fan]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

[get it to x]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

Except that there was such a meeting, in fact several such meetings...but no records of what was said. Never before has so much been hidden.

and get it to somewhere X, the Russian investigation revealed lots and lots of illegal actions, both by Russians and various Campaigns officials and others. But ultimately the obstruction succeeded in preventing all to be known. That, too, was a crime.

But hey, obviously you know exactly what Sussman did or did not say. Again, I'm not a lawyer...but it's pretty darn clear to me that if he really did lie to a straight question, as did Flynn twice, he should be prosecuted for such and found guilty...but it looks like that's not what happened. If not, then he shouldn't have been charged.

So what did Trump offer? What did he get in return? He drove oil prices down, and a country that is basically a gas station needs higher prices. The sanctions against the pipeline he later imposed? When was he ever easy on Putin? Did he let Putin walk in and take the Crimea? No, that was Biden's boss. You all assign nefarious motives to a guy who lost a fortune for his country and you kiss the toes of a guy who's gotten quite wealthy, as has his family, as a direct result of elected office. Look at the log in your eye before you complain about the speck in mine. Maybe Trump wanted to be more blunt than he could be on the record. You don't know, so your reflex is to see collusion. You are the Diogenes of collusion.

[MDlaxfan76]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

Except that there was such a meeting, in fact several such meetings...but no records of what was said. Never before has so much been hidden.

and get it to somewhere X, the Russian investigation revealed lots and lots of illegal actions, both by Russians and various Campaigns officials and others. But ultimately the obstruction succeeded in preventing all to be known. That, too, was a crime.

But hey, obviously you know exactly what Sussman did or did not say. Again, I'm not a lawyer...but it's pretty darn clear to me that if he really did lie to a straight question, as did Flynn twice, he should be prosecuted for such and found guilty...but it looks like that's not what happened. If not, then he shouldn't have been charged.

So what did Trump offer? What did he get in return? He drove oil prices down, and a country that is basically a gas station needs higher prices. The sanctions against the pipeline he later imposed? When was he ever easy on Putin? Did he let Putin walk in and take the Crimea? No, that was Biden's boss. You all assign nefarious motives to a guy who lost a fortune for his country and you kiss the toes of a guy who's gotten quite wealthy, as has his family, as a direct result of elected office. Look at the log in your eye before you complain about the speck in mine. Maybe Trump wanted to be more blunt than he could be on the record. You don't know, so your reflex is to see collusion. You are the Diogenes of collusion.

Diogenes???

I think I'll take that as a compliment. Though I would not claim his asceticism.

But yeah, Trump asked for and welcomed the Russian efforts to support him and hurt Clinton. He wanted to do business with Putin, imagining himself to be an American oligarch. Before and after gaining the Presidency. Still does. Same with the Saudis.

Nothing, absolutely nothing Trump does is not intended for his personal benefit. A constant grift.

But sure, throw stones at the guy who defeated him fair and square. Some of those stones are deserved.

But don't kid yourself about Trump.

Trump wanted to be more "blunt"??? and didn't want anyone but Putin to know???
Sheesh you've been smoking some strong stuff there, get it to nowhere.

Nope, you don't hide.
Never before done...and every time he spoke with Putin, no records.
Something to hide...what exactly we don't know, all we know is that Trump didn't want it known...Putin had no such qualms of course. He had his guy in the room.

But yeah, Putin's primary objective has been to weaken the bonds of the NATO alliance. He's been rather masterful in doing so, at least until now, Trump's useful idiot posturing just one example of how Putin has played the West.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

or the Campaign Chairman giving confidential polling data to a Russian agent???

Or lying about not doing business with Russians? while attempting to do a huge deal for a building in Moscow.

Lying at every turn?

Nah, nothing wrong with that.

[a fan]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

[old salt]

From NRO :

That Old Mueller Feeling
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, February 15, 2022 6:27 PM

Is the Durham probe going to produce all smoke and no fire?

Russiagate special counsel John Durham has caused a stir by alleging that Democratic operatives tied to the Clinton campaign pushed the CIA to monitor Donald Trump even as he was the sitting president of the United States.

Durham had already indicted DNC lawyer Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI about whom he was representing — the Clinton campaign and one of its operatives, “tech executive” Rodney Joffe — when he brought the Bureau Internet traffic data, which was distorted to suggest that Trump was using a Russian bank as a back channel for communications with his supposed masters at the Kremlin. Trump was then the Republican presidential nominee.

Now, as our editorial relates, Durham alleges that this monitoring of Trump’s Internet communications continued into his presidency. Joffe, who had hoped to land a big job in the anticipated Clinton administration, enjoyed privileged access to the data thanks to a government contract — he was supposed to be helping intelligence agencies combat hacking. Durham says that some of the data he mined was generated by the Executive Office of the President — i.e., the White House.

Sussmann is said to have proffered it to the CIA to urge that they, too, investigate Trump’s supposed collusion with Vladimir Putin’s regime. Sussmann’s defense denies this. His lawyers have raised other concerns about Durham’s case. We’ll see how this tussle turns out.

Meantime, one thing is certain: Just as Joffe had privileged access to government databases, his attorney Sussmann had cozy relations with government officials. Sussmann had been a Justice Department cyber-security prosecutor. That opened doors for the politically connected lawyer at such national-security agencies as the FBI and the CIA.

All very incestuous. And that is likely to be the theme of Durham’s final report: a devious political dirty trick against Trump, which the Clinton campaign and Democratic operatives were able to carry out because of what is derisively called “the deep state,” dominated by Democrats, the Party of Government. It is not just the top government officials, spy agencies, and willful but unaccountable bureaucrats; around them orbits a murky cabal of politically connected insiders, floating between government jobs and lucrative gigs at law and lobbying firms, government contractors, think tanks, public-private enterprises, academe, etc.

But Durham’s final report is a ways away. For the moment, we are left to ponder his prosecutions. As I have previously observed, they have so far been underwhelming. In that regard, they have a lot in common with Robert Mueller’s prosecutions.

The Mueller probe set out, with high Democratic hopes, to nail trump for “colluding” with Russia. Yet Mueller’s indictments turned out to be long on explosive innuendo but woefully short on proof of major crimes. He performed a public-relations stunt of indicting Russian companies that he calculated would never show up for an American trial; that blew up in his face. For all the bombast about Trump as a potential Putin hireling, so assiduously hyped by the media and congressional Democrats, Mueller’s actual charges mainly involved false statements made to FBI investigators, often about comparatively trivial matters.

Then, at last, came Mueller’s final report: all smoke, no fire. Lots of Russia, Russia, Russia. Lots of tawdry details about vague Trump connections to apparently unsavory Russian characters. Yet no allegation of a grand conspiracy between an American president and Moscow to undermine national security and U.S. interests. Not even close.

Now we have Durham. For three years, as Rich Lowry explains, he has been examining the origins of the thin-gruel Russiagate probe that led to the Mueller fiasco. Trump supporters are on the edge of their seats, waiting for Durham to drop the hammer: A shocking, Watergate-dimension conspiracy between the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to put the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus in the service of, first, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and then, after failing to get her elected, the Democrats’ crusade to slander Trump as a Putin puppet in order to undermine, impeach, and remove him.

But for all the extravagant claims about how Durham is supposedly on the verge of breaking the case wide open, the big one never comes. For all the current noise about spying on the Trump White House, Sussmann is charged merely with misleading the FBI about who his clients were. Joffe is not charged. Other Clinton-campaign operatives are not charged. Obama officials are not charged. There is no allegation of fraud on the government, or any indictment claiming that the information proffered to make Trump look corrupt was fraudulent.

Same with Durham’s lone case related to the Steele dossier — the faux intelligence reports by which Clinton operative and former British spy Christopher Steele framed Trump as a Kremlin mole. The FBI used these discredited claims in federal court to obtain spy warrants. Yet Durham has charged just one Clinton operative, Igor Danchenko — and merely for lying to the FBI about his sources. Durham’s indictment does not even allege that the dossier was fraudulent. No charges against Steele or against the Clintonistas with whom he collaborated. No indictment charging a government conspiracy, or even a Clinton conspiracy, to defraud the court. No grand Watergate crime of the century.

And let’s not forget Durham’s first indictment. For all the huffing and puffing, all the righteous condemnation of the FBI’s shameful mendacity, political bias, and sheer incompetence in obtaining court authorization to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, Durham charged exactly one low-level Bureau lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith. His crime? Lying to . . . yes . . . the FBI. Not fraud on the court. Not a corrupt pact between the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign to spy on Trump. Just a fib to another FBI official regarding Page’s status as a CIA informant, which the Bureau failed to disclose to the judge. After all we’ve learned about its malfeasance in the collusion caper, the special counsel’s ultimate position is that the poor FBI was duped . . . even by its own attorney!

The Democrat-media complex loved the Mueller investigation but hates the Durham investigation. Other than that partisan slant, though, the two probes seem to have a lot in common.

[Farfromgeneva]

It took me about five seconds to find this:

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

I think PB is quite ill informed.

Yup, but never in doubt.

So you're saying you don't want Sussman held to the same standard you would hold Mike Flynn or Scooter Libby to? Not surprised.

Actually no, I'd be 100% ok with the same standard.
If Sussman actually lied in a material way, he should get tried and punished the same way.

The accusation is that he didn't disclose that his law firm represented the Clinton Campaign and instead he represented that he was representing the specific client bringing evidence of possible malfeasance to the FBI. Is this a lie? Only if asked a direct question as to whether he or his firm had any interests and representation in conflict with the Trump Campaign. If he said no, then he should be convicted.

That'd be a lie at least comparable to Flynn's lie, though I'd argue that Flynn's was far more serious. But sure, a lie.

But if not asked that direct question, the worst that can be said is that he omitted information that may or may not have mattered in how what he was bringing forward was received. That said, we already know that what they brought forward was dismissed quickly by the FBI as not worth further pursuit. So, not exactly highly "material" to the actual investigation of Trump and the Trump Campaign.

But Durham also misrepresented the case in getting the grand jury to indict, and it's looking more and more as if Sussman may not have lied at all.

At least that's how I read what's been publicly available so far. Facts may ultimately prove to be different.

And if so, I'm fine with the same standard for a prosecution and trial (I'm not fine with partisan pardons!).

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go. Sussman knew what he was being asked and he shielded his ultimate client by alleging he got it from the tech guy, when all the while he knew the tech guy was working for the campaign. You can lie by omission as easily as you can lie by commission. He may have actually done both.

A hoax? Really? Then were is the transcript of the translator during Trump and Putin’s love chat? Huh? That is a federal record. Where is it?

If there was such a conversation it would be archived, just like Trump's call with Zelensky.

Except that there was such a meeting, in fact several such meetings...but no records of what was said. Never before has so much been hidden.

and get it to somewhere X, the Russian investigation revealed lots and lots of illegal actions, both by Russians and various Campaigns officials and others. But ultimately the obstruction succeeded in preventing all to be known. That, too, was a crime.

But hey, obviously you know exactly what Sussman did or did not say. Again, I'm not a lawyer...but it's pretty darn clear to me that if he really did lie to a straight question, as did Flynn twice, he should be prosecuted for such and found guilty...but it looks like that's not what happened. If not, then he shouldn't have been charged.

So what did Trump offer? What did he get in return? He drove oil prices down, and a country that is basically a gas station needs higher prices. The sanctions against the pipeline he later imposed? When was he ever easy on Putin? Did he let Putin walk in and take the Crimea? No, that was Biden's boss. You all assign nefarious motives to a guy who lost a fortune for his country and you kiss the toes of a guy who's gotten quite wealthy, as has his family, as a direct result of elected office. Look at the log in your eye before you complain about the speck in mine. Maybe Trump wanted to be more blunt than he could be on the record. You don't know, so your reflex is to see collusion. You are the Diogenes of collusion.

One of my best friends is posted in SA with the DOD and previosuly with the NSA (35yr friend, family thinks in 1s and 0s, Calc 3 as a Jr in HS at Suny Binghamton, triple major at Harvard, masters in computer science at Hop gov't wanted him to get a PhD but he got "bored"). You give Trump credit for oil prices going down? Not even close. Putin and S.A. manufactred that dispute to drive prices down to make the shale drilling like Bakken uneconomical and starve out the marginal production that the US was able to net export.

Lost a fortune for the country? Also incorrect, he's made far more. It's public and having worked close to many who financed him directly and personally having worked for a major CMBS platform and then a CRE CDO in NYC into the financial crisis the myth of Trump is bogus. Thought this was already well covered a long time ago??? He was basically on bad borrower lists (unofficial) with most banks and institutional creditors. Harry Macklowe is more in favor with lenders and he paid a dude to go to jail for violating a court ordered stay and demolish an SRO in times square in the middle of the night, came back from the dead to generate value in the GM building then blew up again on the Drake Hotel dirt and getting his face ripped off for buying the NYC office portfolio when Blacktone acquired EOP and chopped it up into regional pieces. Every institutional lender woudl give that guy money over Trump 100/100 times. Ladder is controlled by one guy who was at Nomura then UBS and DB who's a joke of an institution now - the german gov't wont even let them merge with Commerzbank out of fear the #1 & #2 banks in that country could fail if combined. Even the legit sovereign wealth funds wanted no part, he was hanging on by a thread with shadier sovereign money that most wouldn't take and his revenue from that stupid tv show was falling off a cliff by the time he was formally running. Sunk ungodly money into money pit golf courses and his personal lifestyle that would make Monty Brewster blush.

There's some super specious and incorrect statements in here. It pollutes the entirety of whatever point you are making and gives the appearance of a acolyte who buys what con men are selling.

[Farfromgeneva]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

[get it to x]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

[Farfromgeneva]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

I’m blinded but you make claims about the man that are absolutely false?

There’s codified law and the law of man. Stick with one, don’t weave back and forth when it’s convenient.

[old salt]

From the WSJ editors :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange- ... _lead_pos3

A Strange Defense of Spying on Trump
A tech executive’s response to Durham raises more questions.
By The Editorial Board, Feb. 15, 2022

The press corps doesn’t usually support government spying, but when it comes to Donald Trump they are making an exception. The journalists who gave themselves prizes for pressing the Russia collusion narrative that turned out be false are now dismissing news that their narrative was inflated with false information collected by eavesdropping on Mr. Trump.

A legal filing Friday by special counsel John Durham says a private contractor aided the Hillary Clinton campaign in concocting the false collusion tale. Tech executive Rodney Joffe worked with other researchers to mine proprietary internet data, including records from the White House. The filing says Mr. Joffe could access this data because his employer had a “sensitive arrangement” with the government to provide internet services, which Mr. Joffe “exploited” to help Team Clinton gather “derogatory information about Donald Trump.”

Mr. Joffe’s response, in a Monday statement, is worth parsing. It describes Mr. Joffe as an “apolitical internet security expert” who “legally provided access” to the internet data from the White House.

“Under the terms of the contract, the data could be accessed to identify and analyze any security breaches or threats,” says the statement. And since there were “legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” Mr. Joffe and “cyber-security researchers” prepared a “report of their findings,” which they gave to the CIA.

The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives. If the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government—immediately and in a classified manner.

But according to Mr. Durham’s filing, Mr. Joffe took his information to others—namely, lawyers for the Clinton campaign, who also brought in the oppo-research hit squad Fusion GPS. This partisan team spent months writing anti-Trump white papers full of unproven claims that they spread to the media. We doubt government contracts include: “In case of threats, first call Democrats.”

Mr. Joffe’s statement raises more questions than it answers. Who in government provided the contract that gave him such access to White House records? Why did he cooperate with Clinton campaign operatives? How did he come to hire the same lawyer who worked for the Clinton campaign?

We don’t apologize for thinking that all of this is news that readers might like to know about. The mystery is why the rest of the press corps wants everyone to ignore it.

[youthathletics]

Not reporting suspicious activity with your FSO is clearly regarded as suspect.

[a fan]

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time

So you get it, then.

TeamTrump met with a Russian spy in TrumpTower in an ATTEMPT to get info. from Russia on their political opponent (HRC).

Picture what Ronald Reagan would think. Or the Bush Family. Or any American Conservative------a soon to be sitting President tried to use Russian intel to effect the outcome of the election.

The fact that this attempt was unsuccessful is entirely beside the point, don't you think?

Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that?

Because this meeting with a Russian Spy was public knowledge. Kushner let officials know that it happened AFTER the fact. If laws were broken, any prosecutor in America could file.

It's not illegal to meet with a Russian spy, Get it to X. But it's SUPPOSED to be a terrifyingly immoral thing to do as an American. Republican Conservatives are SUPPOSED to be livid about such things.....but you no longer care. I don't understand it, but here we are as a nation.

And what's worse? After Kush and Trump Jr. attended this meeting, showing the world just how corrupt and morally compromised they were? Kushner served on the Federal payroll....and not one single conservative voice called for his immediate removal. Again: I don't get it.

Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign?

Whataboutism allegations that are all of ten minutes old. Let's wait for the actual facts come out before we jump on that bandwagon.

You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

Says the guy who's telling me that meeting with a Russian spy to gain knowledge in a National Presidential Election was no big deal.

Let me ask you something: what would have happened if that Russian agent had delivered dirt. Now what? You have a plan of action for that?

I don't have blind hatred of Trump. I've praised him on NUMEROUS occasions when his policies or statements are good.

Further, I called out the obvious corruption of Hillary with her "pay for play game" when she was Sec of State.

And I called out the obvious corruption of Joe Biden for allowing Hunter to take his no-show job in Ukraine. So my hands are clean, and consistent in my expectations of our leaders.

You should apply this same standard to Trump. If you do, you'll realize how horrible it was that a soon to be sitting President tried to work with Russian spies to achieve his goals. And yes, like both HIllary and Joe's conflicts.....none of this behavior is illegal. But it is unethical, and dangerous to our Representative Democracy.

[MDlaxfan76]

You're equivocating. Weasel lawyer speak. Durham's investigation was about the origins of the "Russia Hoax". And it was a hoax from the get go.

Et tu Brute?

So you don't have a problem with Trump's senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian spy in TrumpTower on the pretext that the spy had dirt on Hillary Clinton?

That's not attempting to work with Russians, in your eyes?

Why is it that every time I ask someone this question, they ignore it?

Becasue some people know their typing bull**it when they are moving their fingers.

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time.. Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that? Was that nice Russian lady even interviewed by Mueller? Manafort was indicted for a FARA violation. Not that I prefer that nice Russian lady meddling in our politics, but what is the relevant statute that was in question? I agree its not a good look, but is it against the law? Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign? Would you say that is permitted in any way? You'd be OK with that if Trump had done it to Biden? I wouldn't. I would feel betrayed. You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

whoa...the meeting ended because it was a "waste of time", she didn't have the goods? as in if she had damning info they'd have happily taken and used it??? You do understand that would not be ok, right? Not just a "bad look", wouldn't it be immediately disqualifying to be working with a foreign agent? As to law, FARA at a minimum. Complicity with that foreign agent doing an illegal act.

But hey, guess it's just peachy keen to try to break the law, right?

It's not that they didn't know that she was representing herself to be working on behalf of Russia.

Which of course is why they lied about it.

And no, pretty sure it's not illegal to monitor DNS traffic. Publicly available info.
Actual eavesdropping would be another matter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That meeting reportedly ended quickly when Manafort saw she was a waste of time

So you get it, then.

TeamTrump met with a Russian spy in TrumpTower in an ATTEMPT to get info. from Russia on their political opponent (HRC).

Picture what Ronald Reagan would think. Or the Bush Family. Or any American Conservative------a soon to be sitting President tried to use Russian intel to effect the outcome of the election.

The fact that this attempt was unsuccessful is entirely beside the point, don't you think?

Why didn't Mueller generate any indictments from that?

Because this meeting with a Russian Spy was public knowledge. Kushner let officials know that it happened AFTER the fact. If laws were broken, any prosecutor in America could file.

It's not illegal to meet with a Russian spy, Get it to X. But it's SUPPOSED to be a terrifyingly immoral thing to do as an American. Republican Conservatives are SUPPOSED to be livid about such things.....but you no longer care. I don't understand it, but here we are as a nation.

And what's worse? After Kush and Trump Jr. attended this meeting, showing the world just how corrupt and morally compromised they were? Kushner served on the Federal payroll....and not one single conservative voice called for his immediate removal. Again: I don't get it.

Like monitoring DNS signals of a sitting President by a rival campaign?

Whataboutism allegations that are all of ten minutes old. Let's wait for the actual facts come out before we jump on that bandwagon.

You're blinded by your hatred of Trump.

Says the guy who's telling me that meeting with a Russian spy to gain knowledge in a National Presidential Election was no big deal.

Let me ask you something: what would have happened if that Russian agent had delivered dirt. Now what? You have a plan of action for that?

I don't have blind hatred of Trump. I've praised him on NUMEROUS occasions when his policies or statements are good.

Further, I called out the obvious corruption of Hillary with her "pay for play game" when she was Sec of State.

And I called out the obvious corruption of Joe Biden for allowing Hunter to take his no-show job in Ukraine. So my hands are clean, and consistent in my expectations of our leaders.

You should apply this same standard to Trump. If you do, you'll realize how horrible it was that a soon to be sitting President tried to work with Russian spies to achieve his goals. And yes, like both HIllary and Joe's conflicts.....none of this behavior is illegal. But it is unethical, and dangerous to our Representative Democracy.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/natalia-v ... eaked-docs