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

1. I'll give credit where due. The economy is flourishing. But given that, the vast majority of wealth derived from that good economy is going to the wealthiest 2%, just like Bernie has been saying. That needs changing, but Trump is part of the 2%, & will never change it. So, it's a double sided sword.
2. I am open to whatever Durham finds, unlike Trump or his supporters.
3. I've heard that may be true for Hillary or the Clintons, but I'm skeptical you could include the Obamas. But it's certainly true for Trump.
4. I'm happy for you.
5. That's beside the point. The fact that you & all Trump-Republicans have made a conscious choice to disregard the evidence against Trump altogether, is itself the scandal.

 

1. Isn't that what the Durham investigation is working on now? I'll stay open to its findings, but until then, those being investigated are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
2. I disagree. Mueller found plenty of wrongdoing, & warned us that the Russians are still interfering in our election process now. Furthermore, today it was announced by an investigative reporter in the New York Times, that Trump adopted the theory that Ukraine was responsible for the 2016 election interference immediately after that secret meeting with Putin that Trump kicked all Americans out of. It has been reported that in that meeting Putin told Trump it was Ukraine & not Russia that was guilty. Trump believed him--& still does. Now we have all the Republican party going around claiming this untruth, knowing full well, they & Trump are simply spreading Russian lies. Several independent investigations into the Russian interference, working alone, all concluded the same thing. . .there's no evidence to support Putin's & Trump" claim that Ukraine interfered in any way with the 2016 election, or is doing so now. One Republican White House aide interviewed for this article, claimed that once he witnessed Trump saying out loud that he believed Ukraine interfered in the election BECAUSE PUTIN TOLD HIM SO. As an American, that makes me really uneasy.

 

No. I want it to succeed & share that success with every citizen, in terms of human rights, opportunity, & economics. Does that make me a threat?

 

LOL, funny after the dems reached a verdict even before Trump took the oath.

 

I don't know. You say that you don't support them, but you make posts in support of them. It's confusing.

 

It looks like no stone is going to go unturned.

Former NSA Director is cooperating with the Durham investigation
https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-...sa-director-cooperating-durham-investigation/

 

Just like Trump in this impeachment farce, he would have to be proven guilty by the Senate.

None regarding collusion, which was the whole point.

They've been doing that since 1917. Obama knew they were meddling, but rightly said it is ludicrous to think Russia could change the outcome of a US election. This is a country with an economy the size of Italy's for pete's sake. I'm way more worried about our own Deep State interfering with our election than any foreign government.

Why should I care about the opinion of the uber biased NYT?

Hillary tried to get dirt on Trump from Ukraine in 2016.

 

Which is why the House farce was a show trial.

 

This is a waaay broader investigation than the IG's.

 

I'm confused. (Bold print above) I don't support who?

 

The House proceeding was the very definition of a show trial, where guilt was decided beforehand and they pretended to have a fair inquiry.

 

1. Yes. That's precisely what the U.S. Constitution says is the duty of the Senate. But with the current Senate leader(s) publicly supporting a predetermined verdict, & refusing to allow further new testimony because they fear it might implicate the President, how does the Senate live up to its Constitutional responsibility?
2. Mueller said there was insufficient evidence to conclude collusion, but he never said there was no evidence supporting collusion.
3. After the Republican efforts to throw elections in NC, GA & parts of VA during the 2018 elections, I share your concerns.
4. Your personal hatred of the NY Times doesn't prevent it from publishing some truthful, revealing investigative articles with information that could affect your life as well as mine.
5. How?

 

You don't think the House acted in a predetermined way? Really? They've been talking about impeachment since Day 1 and 100 of them voted for impeachment before the Ukraine excuse. Talk about fear, heck, Nancy is afraid to even send the articles over.

That is a distinction without a difference. IMHO Mueller knew there was nothing to collusion about when he started, even the IG asked why it wasn't shut down about that time.

Is that what Durham's criminal investigation is about?

I don't hate that paper, I actually really admire much of what they publish apart from politics. But they long ago gave up any pretense of political objectivity.

No doubt the NYT never told you this:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

 

If that's true for the Trump impeachment, it's also true for the Clinton one of 1999, for the rules were pretty much adopted from that earlier event.

 

Except that the Rep didn't announce that they were going to impeach Clinton on day 1 with or without a crime...

 

Excellent point!

 

1. There's a big difference between having a strong opinion about wrongdoing & actually proving it. Yes, House Democrats had negative feelings about Trump since before his inauguration, but they couldn't do anything about it other than investigate leads as they came in. Those leads ultimately led them to the Ukraine scandal, & that led them to convincing evidence that Trump was abusing his Presidential powers & involving a foreign government in American elections FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT. If what he did had been for the benefit of the country, it would have been OK. But it wasn't, & that makes it both criminal & an abuse of power, & against the Constitution. All that makes it impeachable & sufficient for removal from office. Democrats stayed well within legal boundaries throughout the process--something I'm not comfortable claiming for Republicans after the commentary by McConnell.
2. Nancy is responding to McConnell's public statements announcing his premeditated conclusion that the President was innocent, & saying he would resist or refuse to hear further evidence to the contrary. Nancy wants the Senate to live up to their responsibility under the Constitution to provide Trump with a free & open trial. McConnell's public statements place that goal in doubt.
3. No. Why would Republicans support an investigation into Republican wrongdoing during the 2018 election?
4. Yes, along with 99% of all other newspapers across the U.S. The largest paper in the state where I live, has publicly supported Republican candidates for office for decades. NY City is a liberal Democratic stronghold, much as Montgomery, AL, Memphis, TN, or Salt Lake City, UT are conservative ones. Why get upset at the NY Times because they reflect their main readership politically? Good reporters on any major paper, wherever it's located, will still seek the truth in whatever subject they're reporting on.

 

Neither did the Democrats. Pelosi was very reluctant to open impeachment hearings even after considerable evidence had been found for wrongdoing. Your post is wrong here. Yes, there were individual Democrats who wanted to impeach Trump from before his inauguration, but not the Democratic leadership or the majority of Democrats. In fact, it was only after the testimonies during the Intelligence Committee hearings that the majority of Democrats signed on to supporting even the hearings themselves. Many Republican claims in the news or on the campaign trail are in error. Republicans have trended toward following Trump's example of devaluing the truth far more frequently than they used to. That fact alone, devalues Republicans as a party, America as a culture, & Americans as individuals who buy into the lies.

 

Nadler, who had a big part in this, discussed impeachment the day Trump was elected, and 100 House dems voted it for it before the Ukraine excuse.

 

Come on. Pelosi isn't the "dems".
You had democrats on video asking for his impeachment as soon as he was elected. There was no such thing in regard to Clinton. Be honest now.

 

The Deep State did, as Durham is investigating.

Why aren't you concerned about Biden's QPQ on video? He was in charge of Obama's policy in Ukraine and China and his cokehead kid just happens to get contracts worth millions from both places? ALL foreign policy, and foreign aid for that matter very often, benefits a president. Trump has every right to ask about corruption in Ukraine before he hands over our tax money.

BTW, Prof. Dershowitz disagrees with you on this being impeachable, he says it is a Congressional abuse of power and that Nancy withholding the articles is itself unconstitutional:

https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-...dershowitz-its-unconstitutional-impeach-trump

He'll probably be involved in the Senate trial.

If you want to disqualify McConnell then you also should have disqualified Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi from the House proceedings, Nadler in a premeditated way called for impeachment the day Trump was elected.

No idea what you're talking about with your LW conspiracy theory.

4. Yes, along with 99% of all other newspapers across the U.S. The largest paper in the state where I live, has publicly supported Republican candidates for office for decades. NY City is a liberal Democratic stronghold, much as Montgomery, AL, Memphis, TN, or Salt Lake City, UT are conservative ones. Why get upset at the NY Times because they reflect their main readership politically? Good reporters on any major paper, wherever it's located, will still seek the truth in whatever subject they're reporting on.[/QUOTE]

Here's even a former NYT editor talking about how ridiculously biased they are:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-n-y-times-editor-rips-trump-coverage-as-biased

If they want to be a completely partisan paper, fine, just be honest about it.

 

First, as a living, breathing Democrat myself, I haven't been inspired, motivated, or influenced by Nadler for at least two decades. That must be some weird remnant from past Republican talking points, thoroughly outdated now. On your second point, when did 100 House Dems vote on any impeachment issue? At any rate, it takes a 2/3 vote to impeach anyone, & 100 House Dems are far short of that number, so that shows growing support but nothing more.

By the way, do you recall that on the day of, or the day after Obama's inauguration, Mitch McConnell made a public commitment to do everything in his power to make sure Obama was limited to one term? I've watched this right-left, conservative-liberal polarization grow in intensity since 1994, & am personally sick of it, & wishing the old ability to work across the aisle would return. I hope it does--SOON.

 

I don't dispute the fact that there were always individuals in the Democratic party who wanted Trump impeached from the outset. But I also remember the exact same situation in reverse with Obama. Personally, I would like to see political civility returned to America, along with increased work across the aisle by both parties. This intense polarization serves America poorly.

 

Come on, just stop already.
Admit you were wrong instead of moving the goal post to Obama.
Also, saying that he would make sure Obama was defeated in the next election is in no way comparable to that impeachment farce that just happened. It's in fact expected from the opposition party.

 

Now you're moving the goal post to Obama from Clinton... How silly.
There was no push to impeach Obama from the start of his mandate.