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

Maybe I misunderstood.

I thought that you were supporting the sham impeachment.

 

Irrelevant, he was the point man on this farce, and ran for his House position based on impeachment.

Several times before the Ukraine excuse.

But still completely partisan.

By using impeachment? All politicians do their best to replace their opponents, what did Mitch say new?

This impeachment stunt won't help. I told my son, IMHO he will see a shooting civil war the way things are going.

 

1. The Deep State is now Trump & his minions. I'm curious about what Durham will find in his investigations. He does seem to be going into directions & regions not explored by other investigators before him.
2. I am concerned about Hunter Biden's economic connections in Ukraine, & am open to investigations into that as necessary. I am a Democrat, but Biden isn't my first choice as a nominee. And, I agree, the optics here don't look good. But there have been at least three separate investigations into Joe Biden's activities in Ukraine while VP, & all concluded he did nothing wrong. His actions toward eliminating the Ukrainian head investigator had no connection with Hunter, but were officially endorsed activities by the Obama administration & mostly in response to requests for help from European countries. That Ukrainian investigator was FAILING to investigate Burisma, which concerned the European countries involved. Joe Biden's actions didn't help his son, they had the potential of harming his son because that Ukrainian head investigator was helping Burisma while in office. When Joe Biden helped get him fired, Joe was hurting the company that had hired his son. Republican charges to the contrary don't make sense.
3. Prof Dershowitz is entitled to his personal opinion. Nancy Pelosi's withholding impeachment charges until she's assured they will be handled with the same respect & sensitivity under the law that any other impeachment trial would be. That's respecting the law & the U.S. Constitution--NOT an abuse against it. For me, Mitch McConnell's personal failure to act in accordance with the Constitution in considering Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court in 2015-2016, was much more in line with abuse of the law & the Constitution than anything Pelosi has done.
4. I'm not suggesting disqualifying McConnell. I'm suggesting McConnell should comply with the Constitution, in full measure. McConnell's public pronouncements of innocence before any official actions by the Senate are disturbing in their determination to circumvent the Constitution & enable personal or party preferences in the outcome. That seems to me to be a real abuse of the Constitution. Keep in mind, McConnell is the leader of the Senate, & has a lot of personal power to control what gets discussed, voted on, or acted on. Schiff & Nadler are simply members & heads of different committees, but have no power to impose their will over outcomes for the House. Pelosi, like McConnell, does have more personal power to affect outcomes, but Pelosi was highly resistant to impeachment proceedings until the Ukraine evidence surfaced about 2 months ago. So she's been highly responsible with her leadership, & sensitive to her role & the role of the House in accordance with the Constitution. I see Pelosi as far more law abiding than McConnell.
5. First, I don't know what you are referring to with your "LW conspiracy theory." Please explain. Second, I don't regard myself as a conspiratorialist, so I'm curious where you came up with that.
6. I don't dispute that the NY Times has a reputation for being biased toward the left. There are many papers nationwide prejudiced toward the opposite. I have never seen them deny such prejudice, so I just don't see where the problem is.

 

I think we've both said our piece, Merry Christmas.

 

1. If I am wrong, I will admit it. What exactly are you implying that I was wrong about?
2. I agree that political opposition to Obama was not comparable with impeachment. I also agree that some opposition is expected in every administration. Based on evidence found in the House investigations, I don't agree that the impeachment was a farce, but stands as a warning to every American that we have a dishonest, self-serving, inept President in the White House, who dishonors the Constitution & by that, threatens us all.

 

No, not from the beginning, but I heard impeachment mentioned at various times during his tenure. Keep in mind, impeachment is a long, arduous, difficult process, requiring patience & perseverance. Regardless of the fact that a handful of Democrats wanted Trump impeached from the outset, the reality of impeachment has been much more complex & trying, & nothing would have come of it without the evidence. This impeachment is based on evidence of wrongdoing--of Unconstitutional activity by Trump, who swore allegiance to that Constitution. Trump is a self-promoting con man, & America deserves better than that.

 

I would never support a "sham" impeachment, for any President, of any party. This one is based on solid evidence, & is perfectly real & deserved.

 

1. It's irrelevant who or what is the beginning source of an impeachment investigation. What matters--& what determines its merit, or lack of--is the evidence. An impeachment investigation can end up on with no convincing evidence, yet still be worthwhile simply because it clears the person charged, & serves as an active response to beginning unresolved concerns by someone. Both of these outcomes are positive.
2. That's fine. But it still only demonstrates a gradual increase of interest in impeachment by Democrats over time. Pelosi still wasn't supportive.
3. Most Democrats, including Pelosi, were convinced gradually over time by increasing evidence, to support impeachment. That's not partisan. The ones promoting partisanship were the ones who publicly refused to acknowledge or even look at that evidence, but continually voiced support for Trump regardless of that evidence. (I cite McConnell) That behavior is totally partisan.
4. Republicans used impeachment against Clinton in 1999, but you're right, impeachment is a rare tool. But McConnell did do something never done before in 201-2016, by refusing to honor his Constitutional duty & consider Obama's last nominee to the Supreme Court for over a year. To demonstrate its partisanship, McConnell now insists he'll consider any new nominee by Trump, even during an election year. That's two-faced hypocrisy, extreme partisanship, & a de-facto abuse of power against the Constitution.
5. Whether an impeachment is valid or warranted, depends on the evidence. Settling on a verdict before or without addressing the evidence invalidates the outcome--NOT the impeachment itself. You are following McConnell's example & declaring a verdict without considering the evidence. That doesn't invalidate the impeachment; it invalidates the person making such a partisan conclusion.

 

Merry Christmas to you & yours as well.

 

The real question is...will Durham and Barr take it all the way up the chain of command to Brennan, Obama, and Hillary which we all know were not only involved, but were the real culprits behind it all.

 

James Clapper has already implicated Obama, so it's just a matter of uncovering the details. Right now, it's Brennan's involvement that particularly interests me and recent reports indicate that Durham is particularly interested in this, too. I suspect that one day we will find that Brennan played a central role in opening the Obama-Clinton crime family's spy operation.

 

Oh the melodrama!

What you call evidence is at best one sided hearsay and assumption.
Remember that it was the democrats who were deciding who would testify and which question they should answer. A fair inquiry would have let the republican call their own witnesses and not censored any question.
In fact the democrats started from a position that Trump was guilty and worked real hard to fabricate a narative that fited that view, even to the point of changing the nature of the supposed crime many times.
What a clown show.

 

And yet nothing you accuse him off is in fact unconstitutional...

 

You are supporting a sham impeachment.

It was clear from the Democrats' initial reaction to Trump and Zelensky's phone call that their impeachment circus was intended to cover up and impede the investigations into the corruption, money laundering and obstruction of justice in Ukraine that Quid Pro Quo Joe and his son, amongst others, have been directly and/or indirectly involved in.

To make a long story short, the Democrats are using impeachment to obstruct justice and in doing so they are declaring themselves above the law. This is corruption on the grandest scale and it is in plain sight.

 

It's what's really important, not whose butt is in the WH Oval Office chair.

 

Cranberry sauce is what's really important.

 

Whole berry, please.

Tomorrow I'll be smoking the Christmas turkey,
splitting firewood and
making Gluhwein and ignoring the noise...

Merry Christmas!

 

Of course, not that weak jelly stuff
Since I spend Christmas with my old mother only, we'll be having a turkey roast instead of a full turkey. But in Quebec the turkey is only a small part of the feast with pig knuckles and meatball ragou and meatpie completing the main course with big helpings of potato and macaroni salads. We top it off with a big slice of Christmas log with jello and ice cream

 

Agree

 

That sounds marvelous - a feast fit for the occasion.

We cooked a turkey breast for Thanksgiving so I'm taking it up a notch for Christmas and cooking a whole bird. Today I'll cold smoke it for 4-6 hours using mesquite wood and let it sit overnight so the smoke flavor works through the meat real good before I roast it in the oven tomorrow. That's one of my secrets to a good smoked turkey - it tastes better when it's smoked the day before.

The rest of the meal will be pretty much standard Holiday fare - stuffing, mashed potatoes and gravy, some corn or maybe curly kale from our garden and, of course, whole berry cranberry sauce. I've got a craving for cherry pie so my wife is going to pick one up and maybe she'll get some vanilla ice cream to put on top.

I'm getting hungry just thinking about it!

 

What you call "one-sided hearsay & assumption" simply reveals the depths of your personal prejudice. I listened to the testimonies, & found them to be concerned, factual, accurate & compelling. At least half the nation agrees with me. And, the lie about Trump not being able to call witnesses is a cheap shot by Trump & his supporters. On several occasions, Democrats officially invited Trump to testify himself, or send his personal attorneys to testify for him, or to call witnesses during the hearings. Trump refused them all. The historic Republican party--the party of Lincoln--has abandoned all its former values & hooked themselves to Trump like horses to a sleigh. The new Trump-Republicans care little to nothing about truth, honesty, compassion, or even God. The only thing that matters to them is their leader & master, Trump, & winning on every issue no matter what the cost. Trump & his supporters are the "Clown Show." But they're dangerous rather than funny.

 

I disagree. Inviting foreign interference into domestic American elections is illegal & unconstitutional. Also, inviting or accepting anything of value for personal gain from a foreign country or leader while in public office, is illegal & unconstitutional. Trump publicly INVITED Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. One day after that public request, Russia complied by hacking Trump's opponent's computers. Trump publicly INVITED China to investigate Biden, as a way to help Trump himself in the upcoming 2020 election. And, the Impeachment hearings in the House was given a wide variety of professional State Dept & Foreign Service & Intelligence staff testimonies that all agreed & reinforced each other in the mundane facts, implicating Trump in another illegal & unconstitutional attempt to involve Ukraine in the 2020 election.

Your post is totally inaccurate.

 

I disagree completely. Since the Dept of Justice & its current head, Wm Barr, are both under the direct jurisdiction of the President of the U.S., Trump can have Barr open an investigation on Biden & Ukraine anytime they want. Why haven't they? The current impeachment process is in response to facts gathered from several professional staff members of the State Dept, Foreign Service & Intelligence agencies. Those witnesses are among America's finest career officials of their respective departments. They are dedicated, honest, well informed & concerned by what they were witnessing doing their jobs. They wanted to protect the U.S., the Constitution, & our democracy. They are the heroes here, not Trump.

 

Dumb, the US cannot investigate Ukrainian corruption.

 

It is my understanding that the U.S. works with Interpol & other international law enforcement agencies around the world, for many types of cases. The imperative point here is that the request must go thru normal established channels--NOT thru the President personally. And, the goal must be to benefit the country, NOT Trump personally.