US Attorney Durham objects to IG findings on Russia probe origins in stunning statement

Lisa Page said Obama wanted to know everything they were doing.

 

Looks like some people who know about this matter than you do disagree.

Actually, it doesn't...

Trump's Justice Department has found several major problems.

 

Weren't you pushing the unfounded LW conspiracy known as the Mueller Report?

 

So?

Now you are Playing Moderator and deciding what is "substantive" and what is "hyperbole"?

Cool.

I am sorry if you feel the need to label Inconvenient FACTS (and statements that don't matchup with your chosen political narrative) as "nothing... substantive" or "hyperbole".

In my time at PF, I have learned to RESPECT Differing Opinions.

In general terms (and certainly not singling you out personally) but, in GENERAL terms:

Responses that contain disrespect (and incivility) aren't a good look.

It has always been my position that PF should be a welcoming place for people of all political persuasions.

And, I do my best to follow the rules (and keep the discourse at PF civil).

Now, back to the Actual OP Topic:

As far as Durham, I will be very happy to consider the findings of his report.

And, if there is criminality (regardless of whether it is RW or LW or Ind.), I will favor prosecution of Anything that can be absolutely PROVEN.

Carry on.

 

Barr had a good point today, the Mueller investigation was kept going on long after he knew there was no collusion, and IMHO probably influenced the midterms.

 

And Clapper said he initiated it, so I guess Obama won't be finding out about this on the nightly news...

 

I will accept John Durham's findings. The scope of his investigation will include past employee's, which Horowitz was not allowed to interview for his report.

 

Even though that is completely Off-Topic, in the interest of civility (and out of respect for your inquiry), I shall answer:

It has always been my position (as to the Epstein Situation) that anything that can be Actually PROVEN (and that the Statute of Limitations hasn't tolled on) should be prosecuted to the law's fullest extent.

Now, back to Durham and the OP:

If he can PROVE "Criminality", then he is free to bring it on.

 

And only Durham has subpoena power.

 

Just another reason I trust he will do the job at hand.

 

Sounds good to me, bro'.

If Durham can PROVE Criminal Behavior (beyond a reasonable doubt) people should face prosecution.

 

Cool, that’s his job.

 

And it will lend credence to the idea that much of the opposition to Trump is a Deep State attempt to overturn the election results. Schiff is the current stooge carrying water for that effort.

 

If Durham finds criminal acts, that's a big problem for Obama.

 

LOL I am not a "bro". I am looking forward to the completion of Durham's investigation.

 

No, I'm not playing moderator as you are fond of doing. I was stating that this is worthless hyperbole that contributes nothing serious and substantive to this discussion:

Moving along...

"Trump is going to need to Divert Funds from The "Wall Project" to fund a New Wing at SuperMax" and "By the time that Durham gets finished, there will probably be so many new Federal Death Penalty Case that they will have to postpone the Boston Bomber's Execution until the next millennium" are NOT facts. They're a hyperbolic waste of perfectly good bandwidth that contribute nothing serious, substantive and insightful to this discussion.

 

I would DISAGREE Completely with that characterization.

But, first I would need to read and evaluate the report.

That said:

The "Deep State"?

 

Yeah, me too.

Whether it turns up something or NOTHING.

I can wait to see where the chips fall.

"Speculation" is worthless (at this point).

 

To the contrary, it appears the FBI was not right to launch an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign, nor was it cool to mislead the FISA court, omit critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppress or ignore information negating the reliability of their principal source.

 

If one has a high understanding of the English language, combined with an understanding of the law one recognizes the fact that the report failed to adequately state what happened, but you can tell by reading between the lines.

"Low threshold"(how about NO threshold, really). And with the SCOTUS cases cited, it becomes apparent that the FBI position is that the first and fourth amendment rights can be violated if James Comey's feelings are butthurt. I lost even more confidence in the FBI.

 

Actually, hope isn't involved here. Integrity is. 17 times of withholding evidence is FAR larger than we originally thought. If you withhold several pieces of evidence, criminal nefarious intent is easy to prove. This is Perjury, unless we agree with the FBI that it specifically is above the law.

 

IF you are going to Quote My Post, PLEASE Quote the ENTIRE Post.

You left out THIS Part:

In my time at PF, I have learned to RESPECT Differing Opinions.

In general terms (and certainly not singling you out personally) but, in GENERAL terms:

Responses that contain disrespect (and incivility) aren't a good look.

It has always been my position that PF should be a welcoming place for people of all political persuasions.

And, I do my best to follow the rules (and keep the discourse at PF civil).

Now, back to the Actual OP Topic:

As far as Durham, I will be very happy to consider the findings of his report.

And, if there is criminality (regardless of whether it is RW or LW or Ind.), I will favor prosecution of Anything that can be absolutely PROVEN.

Carry on.
___________

***Selective Quotation appears to be a Troll Tactic (whether or not that was your intent).

Now back On-Topic:

Durham has every right to pursue his investigation, and I look forward to his findings.

 

I wasn't able to make a post at the time, but I myself noted that. In order to create the nonexistent Obstruction Case, he needed to keep his investigation artificially open. Even as Trump's lawyer suggested giving the documents to clear the case. There's a term for that, it's called "planting evidence."

This is all dirty, very very dirty. And yes, it's going to criminal court cases.

 

I'd trade you, but the abuses must be stopped.

 

One's done and's history, and ta other's only just begun.