Will John Durham get the "Kavanaugh Treatment"

[NxNW]

Nobody raped anyone in high school.

Link, please.

 

[HTacianas]

No. I think he'll likely fade away into obscurity as he continues to fail to find evidence against the ex-president's political rivals. Kinda like the ex-president's failed election integrity committee - does anyone even remember who was a part of that?

This isn't a matter of hunting down political rivals. He has found very real evidence of serious crimes. Along with what is already known, the recent filing was made to, in effect, disqualify Sussman's lawyers for a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest is a case of loyalties between Sussman and someone else yet un-named. Now, there were Republicans who opposed Trump just as much as Democrats and we don't know yet who the un-named parties are.

I say that if the yet un-named parties are Democrats, Durham will become a pop culture villain overnight. But if they are Republicans he will become a hero. As of now he is known to be a fair and honest prosecutor. That is our baseline. I'm wondering which way it will go.

 

[HTacianas]

Link, please.

I'm sorry but I cannot provide a link to something that never happened.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I'm sorry but I cannot provide a link to something that never happened.

I can, however, provide a link that shows your statement that "Nobody raped anyone in high school" is categorically false:

Gates Chili student, 14, accused of raping classmate in bathroom

 

[durangodawood]

Clearly we need a special prosecutor to investigate the nefarious origins of the Durham probe.

 

[HTacianas]

I can, however, provide a link that shows your statement that "Nobody raped anyone in high school" is categorically false:

Gates Chili student, 14, accused of raping classmate in bathroom

I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

"My apologies. I was incorrect in my statement and should have chosen my words more carefully."

That would be an appropriate response I think.

And, FYI, before this goes too far, I am just having a bit of fun with this.

 

[Opdrey]

I saw the relevant testimony on TV. I believed his accuser.

But you have to admit that Boof-master Brett's crying jag was pretty convincing that he didn't do anything wrong, right?

 

[Opdrey]

Rather disparaging to call a Justice of SCOTUS "judge I like beer"

Isn't that what Mr. Kavanaugh testified to in front of Congress? I thought that was part of why he got the nomination in the first place.

 

[mala]

Nobody raped anyone in high school.

what absolutely nobody?!

 

[disciple Clint]

That's his old title. Now he's *JUSTICE* "I like beer". He disparages himself with his unseemly public behavior.

disparages himself with his unseemly public behavior.

Care to expound on that statement?
Nothing has been anything other than exemplary regarding his public behavior Maybe you can dig up something from when he was a child?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Care to expound on that statement?
Nothing has been anything other than exemplary regarding his public behavior Maybe you can dig up something from when he was a child?

I was thinking of his angry blubbering during his confirmation hearing. Rather unprofessional.

 

[disciple Clint]

I was thinking of his angry blubbering during his confirmation hearing. Rather unprofessional.

I think he was exceedingly kind, I do not want to contemplate what most people would say or do if they were subjected to the treatment he received, they knowingly tried to assassinate his character with facts that were unproven and or untrue.

 

[KCfromNC]

This isn't a matter of hunting down political rivals. He has found very real evidence of serious crimes.

If that were true, you'd think the evidence would have led to actual charges by now. So far, zero, kinda like Donald's and the GOP's previous attempts to manufacture stuff against his political rivals ... Benghazi, Obama not being a citizen, etc, etc, etc. At some point you'd think the people who are the desired audience for these kinds of stories would catch on that they're being taken advantage of.

Although I guess to be fair on the subject of "very real evidence of serious crimes", one of the past attempts did lead to an impeachment trial.

 

[HTacianas]

If that were true, you'd think the evidence would have led to actual charges by now. So far, zero, kinda like Donald's and the GOP's previous attempts to manufacture stuff against his political rivals ... Benghazi, Obama not being a citizen, etc, etc, etc. At some point you'd think the people who are the desired audience for these kinds of stories would catch on that they're being taken advantage of.

Although I guess to be fair on the subject of "very real evidence of serious crimes", one of the past attempts did lead to an impeachment trial.

The evidence has led to actual charges. Michael Sussman has been charged with making false statements to cover the whole thing up. Durham has also filed a motion to have Sussman's lawyers removed from the case due to a conflict of interest they have in representing Sussman while also representing others involved in the matter. If you understand what that means, others are about to be arrested as well. Removing Sussman's lawyers now avoids a conflict of interest later when they all start turning on each other.

I'm not making wild claims here. We can watch the whole thing play out and see what happens.

 

[SimplyMe]

The evidence has led to actual charges. Michael Sussman has been charged with making false statements to cover the whole thing up.

This would be false. The claim is merely that Sussman lied about who he was representing -- it is alleged that he told FBI agent Baker he was no representing anyone, but he was actually representing the Clinton Campaign (not Hillary personally) and also "Tech Executive-1."

The truly odd thing about this indictment is that Agent Baker, as part of a House Committee investigation, stated that he did not recall who Sussman claimed he was representing when they had the conversation in 2018. If Baker could not recall almost four years ago what Sussman may have said about who he represented, how can they convict based on his testimony now? It was a private conversation that was held between Sussman and Baker with no one else present and was not recorded.

Durham has also filed a motion to have Sussman's lawyers removed from the case due to a conflict of interest they have in representing Sussman while also representing others involved in the matter. If you understand what that means, others are about to be arrested as well. Removing Sussman's lawyers now avoids a conflict of interest later when they all start turning on each other.

I'm not making wild claims here. We can watch the whole thing play out and see what happens.

Except where is the conflict of interest, unless his lawyers are representing Baker? This case is a simple he said/he said, where the crime is merely lying to the FBI about who Sussman was representing.

Next, if Durham actually was going to file charges then, how prosecutors normally work, he would have filed them and then claimed that there was a "conflict of interest" based on another pending case -- he wouldn't have had to spell out a totally different claim in an indictment that had zero to do with the "extra crime." Whether or not "Tech Executive-1" or the Clinton campaign are guilty of what Durham alleges has zero effect on whether or not Sussman lied about representing them when talking to Baker.

 

[HTacianas]

This would be false. The claim is merely that Sussman lied about who he was representing -- it is alleged that he told FBI agent Baker he was no representing anyone, but he was actually representing the Clinton Campaign (not Hillary personally) and also "Tech Executive-1."

The truly odd thing about this indictment is that Agent Baker, as part of a House Committee investigation, stated that he did not recall who Sussman claimed he was representing when they had the conversation in 2018. If Baker could not recall almost four years ago what Sussman may have said about who he represented, how can they convict based on his testimony now? It was a private conversation that was held between Sussman and Baker with no one else present and was not recorded.



Except where is the conflict of interest, unless his lawyers are representing Baker? This case is a simple he said/he said, where the crime is merely lying to the FBI about who Sussman was representing.

Next, if Durham actually was going to file charges then, how prosecutors normally work, he would have filed them and then claimed that there was a "conflict of interest" based on another pending case -- he wouldn't have had to spell out a totally different claim in an indictment that had zero to do with the "extra crime." Whether or not "Tech Executive-1" or the Clinton campaign are guilty of what Durham alleges has zero effect on whether or not Sussman lied about representing them when talking to Baker.

We can watch the thing play out and see what happens.

 

[SimplyMe]

We can watch the thing play out and see what happens.

Yes, we can. At the same time, we do know what the current indictment is, and what it isn't. It is merely an indictment, much like Gen. Flynn, of "lying to an FBI agent." Yes, we'll see what happens with the other allegations in the indictment but they have no real tie, other than possibly as background information, into the alleged lie.

 

[KCfromNC]

The evidence has led to actual charges. Michael Sussman has been charged with making false statements to cover the whole thing up.

I remember hearing that "process crimes" like that don't matter when it was part of Mueller's investigation of Individual 1 and friends.

Durham has also filed a motion to have Sussman's lawyers removed from the case due to a conflict of interest they have in representing Sussman while also representing others involved in the matter. If you understand what that means, others are about to be arrested as well.

Let us know when it happens.

I'm not making wild claims here. We can watch the whole thing play out and see what happens.

I've been waiting for years for anything of substance. Kinda like the Benghazi stuff. And 2 elections full of empty promises of evidence millions of illegal votes. And empty promises to lock her up. At some point, people are going to realize there's a pattern here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh I see .. Trump supporter now found a new hero John Durham. If you google John Durham , first thing you will find “Flashback: Democrats long trashed Durham probe as 'politically motivated” posted 5 hours ago, Fox news and conservatives media setting up the stage that their hero will be attacked by boogieman.

John Durham works for Merrick Garland in DOJ. Unlike Trump administration, Biden administration will not stop, attack or fire John Durham.

John Durham will be able to finish his investigation, file charges against any one and do whatever he wants “accordance to the law” and there will not be a political pressure.

Biden administration doesn’t control media, so media is free to write whatever they want.

Control the media? Definitely not...

Threaten the media with bogus terrorist claims? Well yeah, Mayorkas isn't doing anything about the border....he has to stop the spread of false narratives online.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...bels-conspiracy-theories-a-terror-threat/amp/

The bulletin, issued Monday and in effect until at least June 7, blamed an “online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis-, dis- and mal-information introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.

It's totalitarianism for your safety!