John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,814
36,109
Los Angeles Area
✟820,431.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I'm hoping someone can give me a quick "uh yeah" if I'm correct:

The Mueller report indicted 34 people ...

So how can anyone logically argue that the impetous for an investigation was misguided and should not have occurred when there were so many actions of concern?
uh yeah
Is the other side arguing "They had to stretch the law to indict individuals who broke the law and that's not okay" or are they arguing that "we should have just let them break the law without charging them"?
I believe they've largely progressed from Denial to Anger: the FBI is irredeemably corrupt and needs to be defunded and dismantled.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,110
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,527.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
uh yeah

I believe they've largely progressed from Denial to Anger: the FBI is irredeemably corrupt and needs to be defunded and dismantled.
All because things didn't go Trump's Way, hey?
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
All because things didn't go Trump's Way, hey?
It goeth like this:

“The FBI is investigating Hillary; Hillary must be corrupt!”

The FBI is investigating Trump*; the FBI must be corrupt!”


*this did not happen until Mueller and the FBI hadn’t had an investigation into Mister Trump at that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It goeth like this:

“The FBI is investigating Hillary; Hillary must be corrupt!”

The FBI is investigating Trump*; the FBI must be corrupt!”


*this did not happen until Mueller and the FBI hadn’t had an investigation into Mister Trump at that point.
As a pressing matter of National security, Putin determining who is President vs. Anthony Wieners lap top:

Durham: Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC at I. The speed of this action sharply contrasts with Strzok' s decision-making in the referral in September 2016 of a matter involving former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop computer. In that instance, according to the OIG, the FBI and Strzok did not act for over a month to pursue legal process to review thousands of missing Clinton emails found on Weiner's laptop. The OIG sharply criticized the FBI, and particularly Strzok, for this delay. As discussed more fully below, the immediate opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation contrasts with the care taken in connection with the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and other matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think we can fairly say Russia was in Trump Tower.

Sure.


I think they had contemporaneous verification.

That's one way to prop up your bias....look at the reports though, no evidence of a crime.

It's a bit problematic don't you think? To open a full investigation including covert surveillance without evidence of a crime? Based on nothing more than rumor?






Whatever accusation you're referring to is a moot point since we now know Russia was helping Trump and the campaign knew it.

Let's say for example that Australia was helping Hillary and Russia was helping Trump....without any coordination or quid pro quo or illegality.....

What's your point?



The required predicate for opening a full investigation does not articulate in terms of evidence,

Are we talking about some crack dealer trap house that the police are investigating?

Or are we talking about 1 of 2 people vying for the most powerful office in the US?

Because honestly the idea that we would turn the FBI on the latter without any evidence is a serious problem.

It amounts to the weaponization of the federal government....Basically a giant leap towards authoritarianism. Just imagine a candidate for a party, whatever party, ruthlessly hounded by FBI and CIA and information paid for by the opposing party....along with an endless smear campaign in the media.

Would that candidate stand much of a chance? Seems unlikely.

Because unfortunately, half this country still thinks it has reliable news sources giving them facts.....despite all evidence to the contrary. If you looked back 10 years ago, you'd find the left more accurately informed about reality than the right....generally, in multiple ways. Now, they live in a world completely divorced from reality where the term woman is ambiguous and many believe thousands of unarmed black men are being executed in streets every year.

This isn't by accident. The left realized the problem they had was this wide diversity of opinion....which led to many not turning up to vote for Hillary or voting for a throwaway third party candidate. They've fixed that now. They tell the left what to believe. Who can be criticized. What is true. The voters are convinced they're still being given something trustworthy. They aren't.


So before you say "I think they had enough evidence" ....I don't care. The report says no way....they didn't have enough evidence.



and Cross fire Hurricane was not investigating Trump.

And?


Yeah, that's essentially what Papadopoulos was describing.

Oh good...a point of agreement.

It's a statement of facts

Nope. It's an allegation. It could be true....it could be entirely false. Treating it as factual is the exact problem pointed out in the Durham report.


that reasonably indicate an activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur. The decision was unanimous by all FBI senior executives.

Consider that an example of how far the FBI has fallen and exactly why so many whistleblowers have bravely come forth. If you want, I'll pull an excerpt of my favorite testimony....it's the one where they guy who was chasing down child predators found himself in the parking lots of public schools taking down license plates of parents.

It's a moot point since I'm sure the FBI knows.

It's the central point....

That's what the FBI is being criticized for....treating allegations as evidence.

Please look up the distinction between the two before replying again.



Who said it was under the orders of the opposite party and why should that even matter?

The Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary. The FBI and DOJ were under Obama at the time.

Are you really asking why it matters? It's the difference between democracy and authoritarianism.






It was the leaking of hacked Hillary emails through WikiLeaks in Mid-July that was the impetus for the two diplomats to come forward with their hearsay about Russia releasing Hillary emails to help the Trump campaign back in early May. There was the crime they heard about happening right in front of their eyes.

Russia hacking the DNC or Hillary's private email isn't proof of a crime involving Hillary's political opponents.

And it's worth noting....that's not disinformation. It's just information. It turned out to be factual information.




That should count as some verification.

It doesn't and in no way should.



From the Mueller report:
Papadopoulos’s Russia-related communications with Campaign officials continued throughout the spring and summer of 2016. On May 4, 2016, he forwarded to Lewandowski an email from Timofeev raising the possibility of a meeting in Moscow, asking Lewandowski whether that was “something we want to move forward with.”469 The next day, Papadopoulos forwarded the same Timofeev email to Sam Clovis, adding to the top of the email “Russia update.”470 He included the same email in a May 21, 2016 message to senior Campaign official Paul Manafort, under the subject line “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump,” stating that “Russia has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss.”471 Manafort forwarded the message to another Campaign official, without including Papadopoulos, and stated: “Let[’]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump) is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal.”472

On June 1, 2016, Papadopoulos replied to an earlier email chain with Lewandowski about a Russia visit, asking if Lewandowski “want[ed] to have a call about this topic” and whether “we were following up with it.”473 After Lewandowski told Papadopoulos to “connect with” Clovis because he was “running point,” Papadopoulos emailed Clovis that “the Russian MFA” was asking him “if Mr. Trump is interested in visiting Russia at some point.”474 Papadopoulos wrote in an email that he “[w]anted to pass this info along to you for you to decide what’s best to do with it and what message I should send (or to ignore).”475

After several email and Skype exchanges with Timofeev,476 Papadopoulos sent one more email to Lewandowski on June 19, 2016, Lewandowski’s last day as campaign manager.477 The email stated that “[t]he Russian ministry of foreign affairs” had contacted him and asked whether, if Mr. Trump could not travel to Russia, a campaign representative such as Papadopoulos could attend meetings.478 Papadopoulos told Lewandowski that he was “willing to make the trip off the record if it’s in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people.”

To discuss getting them dirt on their opponent and releasing sanctions?

Attempts at meetings and plans for discussions that didn't happen.


Pay attention.



It's futile to argue semantics that will end in hypocritical bias; even if they were to assume they were false they would still have to investigate.

Look at it this way, it was already true that Russia was dumping Hillary's emails anonymously, so the FBI would want to investigate how the Trump campaign knew about it months in advance. Just like they would want to know who Roger Stone's contact in WikiLeaks was.
Are you asking how the Trump campaign learned about Russia hacking Hillary's emails after these were posted on WikiLeaks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As a pressing matter of National security, Putin determining who is President vs. Anthony Wieners lap top.

Durham: Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC at I. The speed of this action sharply contrasts with Strzok' s decision-making in the referral in September 2016 of a matter involving former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop computer. In that instance, according to the OIG, the FBI and Strzok did not act for over a month to pursue legal process to review thousands of missing Clinton emails found on Weiner's laptop. The OIG sharply criticized the FBI, and particularly Strzok, for this delay. As discussed more fully below, the immediate opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation contrasts with the care taken in connection with the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and other matters.

Comey gets too much blame.

He testified the matter was closed. At the time, it was. When new emails were found....he was required by law to amend his testimony.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry to be jumping in so late but I'm hoping someone can give me a quick "uh yeah" if I'm correct:

The Mueller report indicted 34 people (guilt from 8 and 3 Russian businesses), compelling evidence of Trump obstructing justice and 14 other matters sent to the DOJ.

So how can anyone logically argue that the impetous for an investigation was misguided and should not have occurred when there were so many actions of concern?


Is the other side arguing "They had to stretch the law to indict individuals who broke the law and that's not okay" or are they arguing that "we should have just let them break the law without charging them"?

Were most of the charges related to obstructing justice or false statements to the FBI?
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Because honestly the idea that we would turn the FBI on the latter without any evidence is a serious problem.

It amounts to the weaponization of the federal government....Basically a giant leap towards authoritarianism. Just imagine a candidate for a party, whatever party, ruthlessly hounded by FBI and CIA and information paid for by the opposing party....along with an endless smear campaign in the media.
Fortunately, this never happened.
Because unfortunately, half this country still thinks it has reliable news sources giving them facts.....despite all evidence to the contrary.
An awfully general statement without citation.
The left realized the problem they had was this wide diversity of opinion....which led to many not turning up to vote for Hillary or voting for a throwaway third party candidate. They've fixed that now. They tell the left what to believe.
The left tells the left what to believe? Is that some sort of make believe feedback loop?
The Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary.
False.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's one way to prop up your bias....look at the reports though, no evidence of a crime.
None of this is based on bias:

It is a crime to Hack computers, and it is a crime to release hacked information, and it is a crime to interfere in an election (and to cheat).

Durham: These meetings were documented by Downer on May 11, 2016 and by Australian Diplomat-I later in the month.

We know the Trump tower meeting took place on June 9, 2016 and the email sent June 3 shows Russia was interfering to help Trump.
Are you asking how the Trump campaign learned about Russia hacking Hillary's emails after these were posted on WikiLeaks?
No. I'm asking how the Trump campaign learned of the Russian plot to anonymously release Hillary emails, over two months BEFORE they were posted on WikiLeaks?

Because the reports are saying:
(1) that the Australians provided contemporaneous documentation to the FBI that (Papadopoulos) had heard at least two months in advance that Russia had Hillary emails and was going to anonymously release them to help the Trump campaign.
(2) The Australians provided this documentation immediately after they saw WikiLeaks releasing Hillary emails online.
(3) This was the predicate to open the crossfire Hurricane investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Comey gets too much blame.

He testified the matter was closed. At the time, it was. When new emails were found....he was required by law to amend his testimony.

The Durham articulation is describing how Strzok was slow to pursue legal process when it came to Clinton emails but was immediate when it came to the Trump campaign ties to Russia.

The point is that Durham's report is blatantly bias in implying Strzok was being unfair; Durham is straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Fortunately, this never happened.

Perhaps not in the fantasy land version of reality you inhabit.

An awfully general statement without citation.

Here's an example....

News agencies don't have standing to "verify" this alleged laptop. That resides exclusively with law enforcement.

This is a statement so bizarre I can't even decipher it. "Standing"? What are you trying to say here? News cannot possibly discover and report facts? That ability resides solely within the FBI?

It's so divorced from reality it causes one to genuinely question another's faculties.


The left tells the left what to believe? Is that some sort of make believe feedback loop?

Yeah. It's magical thinking....see above.



True.

Fortunately, this never happened.

An awfully general statement without citation.

The left tells the left what to believe? Is that some sort of make believe feedback loop?

False.

You've provided an excellent example of my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The Durham articulation is describing how Strzok was slow to pursue legal process when it came to Clinton emails but was immediate when it came to the Trump campaign ties to Russia.

Right....do you understand why he was slow? Because if the investigation involves 1 of 2 political contenders for the presidency....then moving slowly and cautiously even if you have the facts is a good thing....


That way you don't give the impression of guilt in the minds of the voting public. Let's not mince words either....he had facts. He could simply look at her email address and understand it's not on a government server. That's not mere allegations....those are corroborated facts.


The point is that Durham's report is blatantly bias in implying Strzok was being unfair; Durham is straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

He highlighted the bias in the FBI. That's not the same as "his bias".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
None of this is based on bias:

It is a crime to Hack computers, and it is a crime to release hacked information, and it is a crime to interfere in an election (and to cheat).

Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.

How about the other crimes? How about sending a lawyer to the FBI with information you don't believe yourself and then lie about it coming from your campaign? Is that illegal? Sure is.

How about paying big money to foreign agents to falsely corroborate that previous lie you told the FBI? Is that illegal? Yup.


I understand that Hillary screwed up big time, thought she was above the law and could set up private servers. She got hacked, she got exposed for a lot of corrupt behavior and nomination rigging. That doesn't justify blaming it all on your political opponent and handing disinformation to the FBI to weaponize them.





Durham: These meetings were documented by Downer on May 11, 2016 and by Australian Diplomat-I later in the month.

We know the Trump tower meeting took place on June 9, 2016 and the email sent June 3 shows Russia was interfering to help Trump.

No. I'm asking how the Trump campaign learned of the Russian plot to anonymously release Hillary emails, over two months BEFORE they were posted on WikiLeaks?

Because the reports are saying:
(1) that the Australians provided contemporaneous documentation to the FBI that (Papadopoulos) had heard at least two months in advance that Russia had Hillary emails and was going to anonymously release them to help the Trump campaign.
(2) The Australians provided this documentation immediately after they saw WikiLeaks releasing Hillary emails online.
(3) This was the predicate to open the crossfire Hurricane investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia".

Pay attention very closely....

March 16, 2016....the Russians dumped thousands of Clinton emails onto WikiLeaks.

Unless you have some information that no one else has....and you know of some secret meetings between Russia and Trump in January 2016....

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You're completely oblivious.


Because anytime after March 16, 2016 that Trump references WikiLeaks or Russia we can reasonably conclude that just like anyone else with a brain in their head.....he heard about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right....do you understand why he was slow? Because if the investigation involves 1 of 2 political contenders for the presidency....then moving slowly and cautiously even if you have the facts is a good thing....
Durham said, "The OIG sharply criticized the FBI, and particularly Strzok, for this delay" (pertaining to investigating Wiener's laptop). And that's understandable since the longer it takes the more damaging it becomes for a candidate since it leaves people guessing and entertaining insinuative gossip that may or may not be true.
That way you don't give the impression of guilt in the minds of the voting public.
This is why Durhams reasoning ends in a contradiction since as a matter of fact, the crossfire hurricane investigation was kept top secret from the public, while wieners laptop was announced everywhere. That's a false equivalence.
He highlighted the bias in the FBI. That's not the same as "his bias".
It's a fact that the crossfire investigation was not publicly known, and it's also a fact that the OIG sharply criticized the FBI for moving so slow about Wieners laptop which was announced everywhere. Therefore, it's Durham's bias that insinuates Strzok and the FBI were bias based on this false comparison.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,730
✟247,332.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
(3) This was the predicate to open the crossfire Hurricane investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia".
And this happened, and crossfire Hurricane was opened well before the FBI received the Steele Dosier.
The Steele Dosier was simply extra information it was not central to the investigation.

The Steel Dosier was used (amongst other evidences) to support getting electronic surveillance of Carter Page. The electronic surveillance turned up nothing important and so ultimately the Steel Dosier was ultimately not relevant to the investigation.

I understand that in right wing media circles they are trying to make out that the investigation started because of the Steel dosier but this was untrue. And that the Steele dosier was central to the investigation, but this was also untrue.
It is easier for the right wing audience to focus on the Steele dosier because it got a lot of media attention. But there is a big difference between what the media was talking about and speculating about, vs what the FBI and later the Republican overseen Special Council were actually doing in their investigations.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Durham said, "The OIG sharply criticized the FBI, and particularly Strzok, for this delay" (pertaining to investigating Wiener's laptop). And that's understandable since the longer it takes the more damaging it becomes because the longer it leaves people guessing and entertaining insinuative gossip that may or may not be true in the midst of a campaign.

Your point?


This is why Durhams reasoning ends in a contradiction since as a matter of fact, the crossfire hurricane investigation was kept top secret from the public, while wieners laptop was announced everywhere. That's a false equivalence.

Kept top secret? In what way? Are you claiming that after March 16th, 2016 when thousands of Clinton emails were leaked....nobody was talking about the FBI investigating Russian hacking?

Were you in a coma or something?


It's a fact that the crossfire investigation was not publicly known,

It was publicly known. We knew there was an investigation.

and it's also a fact that the OIG sharply criticized the FBI for moving so slow about Wieners laptop which was announced everywhere.

It's an unenviable dilemma. Announce the investigation before the election and risk it affecting the outcome....or announce it after and damage 4 years of a presidency with accusations of fraud.

Ultimately, I think Comey chose correctly and the public has failed to lay blame appropriately.

Therefore, it's Durham's bias that insinuates Strzok and the FBI were bias based on this false comparison.

Am I mistaken? Is Durham from OIG?

I was under the impression he was a special counsel appointed specifically to investigate the DOJ from outside the federal government structure. That's the whole point. You're aware that when he says "the OIG criticized the FBI" he's talking about the Office of the Inspector General, not himself....right?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nothing John Durham says interests me.
I'll forego his alternative facts for the real ones.

Right...John Durham. The guy who successfully won judgements against dirty FBI agents who framed innocent men who died in prison. The guy who brought down corrupt FBI agents who were working for Whitey Bulger. The guy who investigated the CIA torture accusations and the final report of this is still too classified for public knowledge. The guy tapped by both Democrats and Republicans alike whenever a federal agency is screwing up and trying to cover it up....and they need to figure out the truth....you get John Durham.

You'd think a guy like him would rise higher than a state attorney....but I suspect the proposition of appointing him head of the DOJ is too scary for the average politician because he's not corrupt....and doggedly single minded towards justice.

That's the guy you don't trust. If Jesus came back as a fat gay black woman, was appointed special counsel, and delivered the exact same report....would you trust it then?

If you paid attention, there's no rush on either side to slander Durham or suggest he failed or was biased. We don't have a lot of guys like him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your point?
My point is that the IG was correct in his criticism; The FBI should have acted quickly rather than drag it out, so as to not leave people wondering and guessing about what will be found on Anthony Wieners laptop in the midst of a campaign.
Kept top secret? In what way?
It was a counter-intelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia", and also it was opened as a SIM (sensitive investigative matter). The Russians would therefore need to be kept unaware of it and so would the public.
Are you claiming that after March 16th, 2016 when thousands of Clinton emails were leaked....nobody was talking about the FBI investigating Russian hacking?
No. I'm claiming the public was not informed about crossfire hurricane which began on July 31, 2016. The public announcement that it was Russia that hacked the DNC came on June 14, 2016, when Crowd strike published its forensic report.
Were you in a coma or something?
I'm just stating the facts according to the reports.
It was publicly known. We knew there was an investigation.
The public was aware the FBI had been investigating what they had reason to believe was Russian hacking of the White house, the state department, and the joint chiefs of staff beginning in 2014. The DNC was alerted to an intrusion by the FBI in mid 2015.

Am I mistaken? Is Durham from OIG?
I don't know if he ever worked in the OIG.
I was under the impression he was a special counsel appointed specifically to investigate the DOJ from outside the federal government structure. That's the whole point. You're aware that when he says "the OIG criticized the FBI" he's talking about the Office of the Inspector General, not himself....right?
Yes, I am aware, thanks for asking. That doesn't change the fact that crossfire hurricane was never announced to the public and Wiener's laptop was, which created the logical fallacy in Durham's report that revealed his bias.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,921
2,884
66
Denver CO
✟200,655.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pay attention very closely....

March 16, 2016....the Russians dumped thousands of Clinton emails onto WikiLeaks.

Unless you have some information that no one else has....and you know of some secret meetings between Russia and Trump in January 2016....

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You're completely oblivious.
It wasn't until June 14, 2016, that crowd strike published its forensic examination of the DNC server and it was publicly known that their examination showed that it was Russia that hacked the DNC.

The documented report from the Australians in late July is that Papadopoulos had heard as early as the beginning of May that Russia had dirt on Hillary in the form of emails and they were going to release it anonymously to hurt Hillary.

The significance is that Papadopoulos is a Trump campaign official, who is aware in May that a foreign adversary, Russia, is interfering in the election with the objective to hurt Hillary and help the Trump campaign win. The FBI had no choice but to open a counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia" .
Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.
Exactly, there was a crime in progress and anyone who knew of this criminal activity and was a Trump campaign member and said nothing, could be considered complicit in covering up the crime and therefore would be open to being compromised by the Russians. The FBI would have been derelict in their duty to not investigate the documented reports.

The circumstance of criminal interference by the Russians made it so that If any campaign member or candidate Trump were to admit that Russia hacked the DNC to hurt Hillary, they would have to also admit that Putin illegally interfered to help make Trump President; just like the Don jr. email from June 3 revealed when it was made public.
Because anytime after March 16, 2016 that Trump references WikiLeaks or Russia we can reasonably conclude that just like anyone else with a brain in their head.....he heard about it.
Well, like I said, the circumstances made it so that Trump could not admit he was being helped by Putin. So, Trump started the Russia hoax by flat-out denying that Russia ever hacked the DNC. And in doing so he resorted to slandering others, blaming the FBI, and the Democrats, and the media, in pursuit of his own self-interests. That's how he became compromised by Putin. Here's Trump in continuous denial for over 3 years feeding the Russia hoax conspiracy that Russia never hacked the DNC server:

June 17 2016 Fox news reports:

Trump, for his part, isn’t buying the DNC explanation that this is the work of some nefarious outside hacker. “Much of it is false and/or entirely inaccurate,” he says in a statement. “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s 33,000 missing emails.”

----------------------------------------

Feb. 16, 2017 Trump tweet:
The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!



---------------------------------------
July 16, 2018, Trump at Helsinki:

Trump:
So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.

I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.

-------------------------------------

September 4, 2019, Trump asks Zelensky to find the server examined by Crowdstrike.

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0