Five Faulty Premises of Russiagate
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
blu3bird
Well-Known Member
I fckn hate these east European drivers, these assholes can't even park right!
Buck, look at this dumbass to my right....a foreigner from Russia or Poland, who knows. Too lazy to back into a spot....and they don't speak very good English either
These morons shouldn't even have a CDL !
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
As my favorite right wing believer once said, facts don't have to be true to be believed.
So, of course you would fail to understand that others can see your lie.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
To bad everything after Sussman lied about his connection to the Clinton campaign is just bullshit.In a detailed charging document last month, Special Counsel John Durham accused Sussmann of concealing his work for the Clinton campaign while trying to sell the FBI on the false claim of a secret Trump backchannel to Russia’s Alfa Bank. But Sussmann's alleged false statement to the FBI in September 2016 wasn't all. Just months before, he helped generate an even more consequential Russia allegation that he also brought to the FBI. In April of that year, Sussmann hired CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm that publicly triggered the Russiagate saga by lodging the still unproven claim that Russia was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee emails released by WikiLeaks.
At the time, CrowdStrike was not the only Clinton campaign contractor focusing on Russia. Just days before Sussmann hired CrowdStrike in April, his partner Elias retained the opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump and the Kremlin
Coming Into Focus: Hillary's Secretive, Russiagate-Flogging Pair of Super-Lawyers
Here are the prime movers of the false Trump-Russia theory that roiled U.S. politics for years: Clinton lawyers Michael Sussmann, left, and Marc Elias. Some of Sussmann's role emerges in his recent inwww.realclearinvestigations.com
But it doesn't matter to your side because you lack critical thinking skills.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Probably Ukraine. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Ukrainian or Belarusian.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
FIFY
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no one gives a shit
printer
Well-Known Member
Keep up with current events. A month can be a long time and old news, being old news.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
lol look at the propagandist spammer trying to make FISA troll happen.
Any word on how Durham responded to the letter from the data scientists that pushed back on his bullshit narrative? They are pretty confident in the reproducable results of their findings of Trump's use of Alfa bank being the one sending private messages between Russia and his campaign, which is not what was in that bullshit indictment. It's almost like Trump wanted the announcement of the propaganda so his militarized trolls could try to spam it into relevance. Just like how he got himself impeached the first time. Shit I guess even the second time too come to think of it.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/ap-news-trump-campaigns-russia-contacts-grave-threat-senate-says.1028063/post-16570346
Any word on how Durham responded to the letter from the data scientists that pushed back on his bullshit narrative? They are pretty confident in the reproducable results of their findings of Trump's use of Alfa bank being the one sending private messages between Russia and his campaign, which is not what was in that bullshit indictment. It's almost like Trump wanted the announcement of the propaganda so his militarized trolls could try to spam it into relevance. Just like how he got himself impeached the first time. Shit I guess even the second time too come to think of it.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/ap-news-trump-campaigns-russia-contacts-grave-threat-senate-says.1028063/post-16570346
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
I do and about 100M Americans do by now.
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
The current events is they got incited.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Yeah but there are more than 150M that don't. That's why your side has to resort to lies and do their best to install a dictator.
jimihendrix1
Well-Known Member
Durham’s Attempt to Discredit Trump’s Enemies Is Falling Apart
Trump’s prosecutor omitted key evidence from his indictment.
Durham’s indictment does not even allege that the FBI committed any wrongdoing. Instead, it charges that the FBI was lied to — by Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who passed on leads about Trump’s ties to Russia that the bureau was unable to verify. Durham’s indictment claims Sussmann committed perjury by denying he was working for the Clinton campaign at the time he brought his information about Trump to the FBI in 2016.
The first weakness in the indictment is that even if every word Durham writes is true, the charge he has amounts to a very, very small molehill. Interested parties uncover crimes all the time. There’s just no reason to believe that Sussmann’s relationship with a law firm working for Clinton would have made any difference to the FBI — which was already investigating Trump’s ties to Russia and which wound up discarding Sussmann’s lead anyway as a dry hole.
Second, the evidence that Sussmann lied to the FBI is extremely shaky. As Benjamin Wittes notes, the sole basis for charging Sussmann with perjury is the recollection by FBI official Jim Baker. Baker testified to Congress that he remembered very little about his conversation with Sussmann, i.e.:
Yes, the “Jordan” who dug out the evidence that seems likely to undermine Durham’s case is Trump superfan Jim Jordan. Wittes concludes, “It is hard for me to understand how a criminal case against Sussmann can proceed in the face of this testimony.”
The perjury charge is merely the window dressing in the indictment. The meat of it — the part that has Trump defenders excited — is a narrative laid out by Durham attempting to paint Sussmann and the experts he worked with as liars who smeared Trump. That narrative part does not describe actual crimes, of course. Prosecutors can write whatever they want in their indictment. This one is like a Sean Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.
And even the “speaking indictment” portion of Durham’s charge is falling apart now. Today, both CNN and the New York Times reported that Durham selectively quoted from emails in order to furnish a completely misleading impression that Sussmann’s researchers lied.
The story here is that a group of computer scientists discovered evidence of communication between a Russian bank server and a Trump property. The computer scientists suspected, but weren’t certain, the server might be used for some form of communication between Trump’s campaign and Russia. (The reason they suspected this, of course, was the broad swath of shady behavior Trump exhibited toward Russia.)
Durham’s indictment asserts that the computer scientists knew the data was innocent but sent it to the FBI anyway. What the Times and CNN reported today is that Durham supported this charge by clipping misleading segments of emails by the scientists when other emails undermined his accusation.
CNN reports:
Durham’s indictment of Sussmann seems extremely unlikely to result in a prosecution. The rest of it is a story about dishonesty. But the dishonesty lies on the part of Durham himself. His indictment proves only the willingness of many members of the right-wing legal Establishment to corruptly put their powers at the disposal of a liar.
Trump’s prosecutor omitted key evidence from his indictment.
Durham’s indictment does not even allege that the FBI committed any wrongdoing. Instead, it charges that the FBI was lied to — by Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who passed on leads about Trump’s ties to Russia that the bureau was unable to verify. Durham’s indictment claims Sussmann committed perjury by denying he was working for the Clinton campaign at the time he brought his information about Trump to the FBI in 2016.
The first weakness in the indictment is that even if every word Durham writes is true, the charge he has amounts to a very, very small molehill. Interested parties uncover crimes all the time. There’s just no reason to believe that Sussmann’s relationship with a law firm working for Clinton would have made any difference to the FBI — which was already investigating Trump’s ties to Russia and which wound up discarding Sussmann’s lead anyway as a dry hole.
Second, the evidence that Sussmann lied to the FBI is extremely shaky. As Benjamin Wittes notes, the sole basis for charging Sussmann with perjury is the recollection by FBI official Jim Baker. Baker testified to Congress that he remembered very little about his conversation with Sussmann, i.e.:
Yes, the “Jordan” who dug out the evidence that seems likely to undermine Durham’s case is Trump superfan Jim Jordan. Wittes concludes, “It is hard for me to understand how a criminal case against Sussmann can proceed in the face of this testimony.”
The perjury charge is merely the window dressing in the indictment. The meat of it — the part that has Trump defenders excited — is a narrative laid out by Durham attempting to paint Sussmann and the experts he worked with as liars who smeared Trump. That narrative part does not describe actual crimes, of course. Prosecutors can write whatever they want in their indictment. This one is like a Sean Hannity monologue wrapped around a parking ticket.
And even the “speaking indictment” portion of Durham’s charge is falling apart now. Today, both CNN and the New York Times reported that Durham selectively quoted from emails in order to furnish a completely misleading impression that Sussmann’s researchers lied.
The story here is that a group of computer scientists discovered evidence of communication between a Russian bank server and a Trump property. The computer scientists suspected, but weren’t certain, the server might be used for some form of communication between Trump’s campaign and Russia. (The reason they suspected this, of course, was the broad swath of shady behavior Trump exhibited toward Russia.)
Durham’s indictment asserts that the computer scientists knew the data was innocent but sent it to the FBI anyway. What the Times and CNN reported today is that Durham supported this charge by clipping misleading segments of emails by the scientists when other emails undermined his accusation.
CNN reports:
And:
The Times has more examples of Durham taking messages out of context, such as:
And:
Whatever the truth is of the Alfa Bank matter — the Times reports that the computer scientists still don’t feel satisfied they know the answer — Durham’s case that the scientists knew they were lying is simply a preposterous smear.
Durham’s indictment of Sussmann seems extremely unlikely to result in a prosecution. The rest of it is a story about dishonesty. But the dishonesty lies on the part of Durham himself. His indictment proves only the willingness of many members of the right-wing legal Establishment to corruptly put their powers at the disposal of a liar.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no they dont
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
It's called climbing the ladder. And you can bet Sussmann is talking so he doesn't get prosecuted.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Citation from “not OANN” to back
This
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no matter how much time you waste on this no one will ever give a shit. trump will be forever remembered as the guy who stood on stage with putin and praised him while trashing the united states. its on film. seethe :^)
Three Berries
Well-Known Member
In your eyes. Must not watch the Trump rallies I guess. At least they aren't saying FJB everywhere LO in reference to Trump
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Who in his or her right mind would watch a (name) rally? It is a conference or symposium of the similarly detached from reality and therefore utility. You do yourself no favors promoting a failed brand.