3 ms·

That seems to be the issue, doesn’t it? If you give the Durham report weight, it doesn’t even need to go back that far. If someone is seen as a threat to influ

That seems to be the issue, doesn’t it? If you give the Durham report weight, it doesn’t even need to go back that far. If someone is seen as a threat to influential people, from the top down agencies will do what they can to impede and undermine that administration. While on the one hand, it’s amazing to see RFK speak so boldly, on the other hand, should he be elected, I would fully expect some significant event to derail his administration. While getting shot seems too brazen, it definitely sends a message to any future hopefuls that such behavior is still not tolerated.

ModernMech 3y ago
> If you give the Durham report weight, it doesn’t even need to go back that far. Ima stop you right there. The only thing you need to give weight here are the indictments that were brought as a result of the investigation, because that's what was promised. I've read the report from front to back, and it's filled with BS, omissions, and it even attempts to relitigate cases Durham lost in court on the merits. It's a pathetic way for a prosecutor to capstone his career. Read the Mueller report and the Durham report side by side. They are night and day in terms of quality of evidence, completeness, and clarity of reasoning. In fact, doing so reveals just how the Durham "investigation" was really an exercise in motivated reasoning, whereas the Mueller investigation was a serious, sober investigation of where the facts pointed.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  The problem is that at the start Brennan admits that he briefed the president, VP, and others, that the Clinton campaign was about to do, what ultimately happened. So one report starts by omitting that fact, and the other does not. What follows is a variation of fruit of the poisonous tree. > None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162] and "Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for [...] whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election".[163] The investigation led to other crimes, like being pulled over for a broken taillight and then getting busted for possession.
  - typeofhuman 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    > So one report starts by omitting that fact, and the other does not. What follows is a variation of fruit of the poisonous tree. It's really not, because the investigation was still properly predicated. Durham finds this and the IG finds this. It doesn't matter what the Clinton campaign did or didn't do, because the investigation wasn't based on their actions. That it was is the lie of the predication of the Durham investigation, and that he didn't find it and prosecute it is his "failure" in the eyes of right wing media. Why was Durham needed when we have an IG? > None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162] Note that "conspiracy" was never seriously alleged by detractors (collusion was the accusation), and to the extend it was, it was never allowed to be investigated (by Rosenstein and then Barr, both appointed by Trump). They very carefully boxed Mueller into investigating a conspiracy without being able to prove it (by investigating finances, which were considered a "red line" and off limits for investigation). Second, you omit the fact that the Mueller report notes that it faced lies to investigators, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice at the hands of POTUS. Their main catch, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, was in the process of being flipped when Trump dangled and ultimately granted a pardon, in a blatant act of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. It was later found by the Republican-chaired Senate Intel Committee that Paul Manafort was literally exchanging internal campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign, as the Russians were in the process of targeting Americans through Facebook psyops (which the Mueller report proved). So there's your collusion. There's also the matter of how the report was released, causing a federal judge to call into question the truthfulness of the AG Barr (calling his handling of the report and redactions issued "misleading"). Barr notably shut down the investigation as soon as he was confirmed by the Senate. Many people's opinion of the investigation was set due to those lies and omissions, maybe your own. SC Mueller was appointed due to the fact that the AG Sessions was compromised (having lied to the Senate about his Russia contacts as part of the Trump campaign), and Trump was obstructing justice into the already ongoing investigation (by firing the head of the FBI, and citing the fact he was under investigation as the reason for doing so). So really, the biggest problem with the Mueller investigation was that it was investigating a person who ultimately had control over the investigation, who was also the only person who the investigation couldn't hold accountable (due to DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS).

ModernMech 3y ago

> If you give the Durham report weight, it doesn’t even need to go back that far. Ima stop you right there. The only thing you need to give weight here are the indictments that were brought as a result of the investigation, because that's what was promised. I've read the report from front to back, and it's filled with BS, omissions, and it even attempts to relitigate cases Durham lost in court on the merits. It's a pathetic way for a prosecutor to capstone his career. Read the Mueller report and the Durham report side by side. They are night and day in terms of quality of evidence, completeness, and clarity of reasoning. In fact, doing so reveals just how the Durham "investigation" was really an exercise in motivated reasoning, whereas the Mueller investigation was a serious, sober investigation of where the facts pointed.

jonhohle 3y ago
The problem is that at the start Brennan admits that he briefed the president, VP, and others, that the Clinton campaign was about to do, what ultimately happened. So one report starts by omitting that fact, and the other does not. What follows is a variation of fruit of the poisonous tree. > None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162] and "Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for [...] whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election".[163] The investigation led to other crimes, like being pulled over for a broken taillight and then getting busted for possession.
- typeofhuman 3y ago
  [flagged]
- ModernMech 3y ago
  > So one report starts by omitting that fact, and the other does not. What follows is a variation of fruit of the poisonous tree. It's really not, because the investigation was still properly predicated. Durham finds this and the IG finds this. It doesn't matter what the Clinton campaign did or didn't do, because the investigation wasn't based on their actions. That it was is the lie of the predication of the Durham investigation, and that he didn't find it and prosecute it is his "failure" in the eyes of right wing media. Why was Durham needed when we have an IG? > None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162] Note that "conspiracy" was never seriously alleged by detractors (collusion was the accusation), and to the extend it was, it was never allowed to be investigated (by Rosenstein and then Barr, both appointed by Trump). They very carefully boxed Mueller into investigating a conspiracy without being able to prove it (by investigating finances, which were considered a "red line" and off limits for investigation). Second, you omit the fact that the Mueller report notes that it faced lies to investigators, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice at the hands of POTUS. Their main catch, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, was in the process of being flipped when Trump dangled and ultimately granted a pardon, in a blatant act of obstruction of justice and witness tampering. It was later found by the Republican-chaired Senate Intel Committee that Paul Manafort was literally exchanging internal campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign, as the Russians were in the process of targeting Americans through Facebook psyops (which the Mueller report proved). So there's your collusion. There's also the matter of how the report was released, causing a federal judge to call into question the truthfulness of the AG Barr (calling his handling of the report and redactions issued "misleading"). Barr notably shut down the investigation as soon as he was confirmed by the Senate. Many people's opinion of the investigation was set due to those lies and omissions, maybe your own. SC Mueller was appointed due to the fact that the AG Sessions was compromised (having lied to the Senate about his Russia contacts as part of the Trump campaign), and Trump was obstructing justice into the already ongoing investigation (by firing the head of the FBI, and citing the fact he was under investigation as the reason for doing so). So really, the biggest problem with the Mueller investigation was that it was investigating a person who ultimately had control over the investigation, who was also the only person who the investigation couldn't hold accountable (due to DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS).