Durham finds DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia pro

sure, keep believing that, lol

 

According to the guy who said years before Epstein likes them young lol
Sounds legit

 

Maison de l’Amitie

 

???Believing what? She gave them the dirt on Hillary.? or nothing was against the law? The first is a matter of public record and Muellar didnt prosecute because no law was broken. Clinton paid millions for dirt on Trump from Russians.

 

Your point?

 

Mueller said if he thought Trump was innocent, he would say so... he never said so

he went by the DOJ memo, not charging a sitting President - Mueller was Republican

 

What nonsense. What law was even alleged to have been broken at the meeting?

 

Why are you avoiding what I WAS talking about and the subject of this thread? Dodge noted.

 

Prosecutors do not declare innocence and he brought no evidence of guilt and since we all know it was all made up from the get go......

Mueller had a duty to report any and all crimes he discovered and report them to the AG. He reported none.

 

Nope

 

You did and I did read it and I refuted it. Now refute Durham's findings.

 

I clearly and repeatedly called for anyone who engaged in violence be fully prosecuted so stop try to somehow mitigate the damage here by diverting to Jan 6.

Therewas NOTHING on which to base an investigation it was all made up by the Clinton campaign and those at the top levels of theDOJ and FBI.

HE LEAKED LIKE A SIEVE......

Yes their plan failed.

Comey has hadno problem speaking out in his CYA efforts

And when you can't when on the merits start the ad homs.

 

A President who is sworn to uphold the Constitution and the lawand protect the rights of the citizens......yes if he was brought into the loop and did not stop it....if that information is about officials at the highest levels using their power and authority to interfer in na election he should summarily fire them.

 

Based on your description of events, I naturally thought you had switched topics to the Orange Stain.

 

Gee at first I thought you were talking about durham

 

Sayyyyy, did Durham report any crimes he discovered ? Or prosecute anybody ? Maybe @Bluesguy can help with this question.

 

If not it obviously means it was total vindication and exoneration

 

Durham had the greatest leeway of anyone ever doing an investigation.
Indict any and all and ask for charges in almost any thing he could find. For 4 yrs he looked and looked and looked.

I think 3 were brought up on charges, 1 conviction.
And then a big wag of the finger, shame on the FBI for cutting corners in opening the investigation.

But all legal, thanks to the Patriot Act and other liberty taking acts passed by our gov't. GWB et el.

But I suppose 1 big thing came out of this.
There may have been a few rogue players, the big gov't depts themselves are proven to not have been weaponized.
Which the vast majority of Americans already knew.

 

Big Reveal in Durham Report: FBI Protected Clinton

'the FBI leadership bent over backward to protect Clinton’s campaign while launching a full investigation into Trump’s campaign on the thinnest of pretexts. In other words, the FBI was not really the Clinton campaign’s persecutor, as so many insisted over the past few years, as much as its protector.'

“The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” the Durham report observes, referring to the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign, “reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign.”

'Consider the bureau’s approach to Clinton.'

'The Durham report notes that, in early 2016, a confidential FBI source arranged for a sizable donation to Clinton’s campaign from a foreign country. Instead of taking steps to learn what might be in the works, the bureau eventually instructed the source to stay away from the Clinton campaign. Then, it offered Clinton’s lawyers what is known as a defensive briefing, so Clinton was aware of the foreign country’s efforts to help her.'

'The double standard is unmistakable: Trump was never offered a defensive briefing when the FBI began probing his campaign, whereas the bureau gave Clinton not one but two such briefings between 2014 and 2016.'

'On a separate occasion, the report points out, FBI agents strongly suspected another foreign government of planning to contribute to Clinton’s campaign—hoping to curry favor with the person they expected would be the next American president. But when the FBI field office requested sign-off on a surveillance warrant application for a non-U.S. citizen suspected of having been in contact with Clinton, headquarters demurred. “They were pretty ‘tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President,” an FBI official told Durham.'

'Possibly the most egregious example of special treatment was the FBI’s probe of the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization that raised money from foreign governments—even when Hillary Clinton was a senator and, later, secretary of state. By the beginning of 2016, three FBI field offices were investigating the Clinton Foundation.'

'Eventually, headquarters got involved. At a meeting chaired by Comey’s deputy, Andrew McCabe, at the end of February of that year, he initially urged the three field offices to close the investigations. Only later, according to the Durham report, did he back down—partially. The G-men were instructed that any “overt investigative steps” would require sign-off from McCabe. Durham quotes one FBI agent expressing frustration on the straitjacket placed on his investigation.'

THE FIX

'Then, in May of 2016, a Comey aide called the New York field office to ask that the investigation cease and desist, citing an “undisclosed counterintelligence concern,” according to the report. Eventually, the three investigations were consolidated in New York, but U.S. attorneys declined to issue any subpoenas—effectively ending the probe before the 2016 election. '

 

Trump was briefed, Thats a lie

 

Your claim is fake news.

https://www.nytimes.com › 2023 › 05 › 15 › us › politics › trump-russia-investigation-durham.html?referringSource=articleShare
Durham Report Finds Fault With FBI Over Trump-Russia Investigation ...

'Durham criticized the F.B.I. for giving Mrs. Clinton's campaign the briefing but not supplying one to Mr. Trump about the Russia suspicions, and for not following up on a suggestion that the ...'

But then you have been repeating the fake news narrative the entire time.

 

Cool...
And TRUMP WON, Anyway!
So?
No Harm, NO FOUL!

 

Obama knew of Clinton’s plan to hit Trump with bogus collusion accusations. Clapper told the intelligence committee he saw no collusion, that means he told Schiff.


Obama, Clapper were briefed on reports of Clinton campaign's Russia collusion narrative, Durham report shows

Former President Barack Obama and his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, were both briefed in 2016 on reports that then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton planned to vilify Donald Trump by claiming he was colluding with Russia to win the election, according to the final report from Special Counsel John Durham's investigation into the original Trump-Russia probe.
……………..
The report notes that Clapper told Durham's investigators, as well as lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, that he saw no evidence of Trump's team colluding with Russia and knew of no direct evidence that would meet the legal standard of conspiracy or collusion on Trump's part.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ob...ussia-collusion-narrative-durham-report-shows

 

He got one from the Intel agencies already

 

It's interesting that your avatar is Biden, your claims have his coherence.