Special Counsel John Durham Exonerates Donald Trump of “Russiagate”

[Loren Pechtel]

It seems to me that RVonse and I literally live in different universes.

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HHP_May2023_KeyResults.pdf

See page 42 of this poll and you will find 70% of America lives in a different universe than you do. When asked "Are you concerned or not concerned about interference by the FBI and intelligence agencies in a future presidential election?" 37% are very concerned and 33% are concerned.

In your universe there are only 10% not concerned at all.

The problem here is that you're mistaking the direction. Yes, I'm concerned--because we have seen far too many examples of law enforcement at all levels favoring the Republicans. Comey basically elected Trump.

 

[Patooka]

Court transcriptions are freely available to everyone. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to link just one such instance where this happened. Go ahead, I'll wait. Just keep in mind not even the Qanon Shaman, whom you incorrectly think is innocent ever mentioned FBI investigations as a motive during his trial.

Back to my original question, list the "lies" that you believe have been said about Trump.

Freely? My memory is that PACER is only free for light enough use--you can look something up but searching through all their cases is way past the free limit.

Easily I guess is more appropriate. I'm also certain just about every Jan6 trial was reported by one media outlet or another. If what RVonse is saying is true, there would be some indication of that. People like Tucker Carlson would be putting them on a pedestal saying, "Look what Joey Blogs said at his trial. He's a true patriot, he knows the corruption the Deep State had done! Listen to his own words in court!". Instead they were all permutations of "I fell for Donald Trump's lies".

 

[ZiprHead]

A Sinister Flop

Special Counsel John Durham served up not an investigation, but an excuse for future partisan abuses.

www.theatlantic.com

Defending the indefensible wears people down. Even the most committed and tribal warrior of the right must have sometimes wished that Trump didn’t keep making the job so hard.

Maybe if there were some way to fight for the Trump cause that circumvented Trump personally? Even better if the spotlight could be shifted from Trump entirely and focused on ideological and cultural enemies instead.

In 2019, Trump was scorched by two massive reports detailing the assistance provided to his 2016 presidential campaign by Russian intelligence agencies. The first, by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, also presented evidence of obstruction of justice. The Mueller document was supplemented by the even weightier report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina.

As a legal text, the Durham report is limp and meager. As a history of recent events, it is misleading. But don’t dismiss its significance because of its intellectual defects. The Durham report is already proving to be a huge success as a prop and support for the bitterest partisan rancor. And its fullest import may yet lie ahead: as a rationalization for abuses of power by Trump-legacy administrations of the future.

The whole article is worth a read.

 

[RVonse]

None of them claimed that it was about who the FBI was investigating.
Tom

I'm not a lawyer. But do you suppose the people put on trial were possibly following advice of their council for best possible outcome? And do you suppose that (if their council) specifically gave them instructions NOT to appear like a conspiracy theorist, that they would possibly follow that advice when faced with jail time?

I can't imagine them saying anything political or conspiracy related about the FBI would have helped their cause and the fact none of them did say anything means pretty much nothing to me.

 

[laughing dog]

None of them claimed that it was about who the FBI was investigating.
Tom

I'm not a lawyer. But do you suppose the people put on trial were possibly following advice of their council for best possible outcome? And do you suppose that (if their council) specifically gave them instructions NOT to appear like a conspiracy theorist, that they would possibly follow that advice when faced with jail time?

I can't imagine them saying anything political or conspiracy related about the FBI would have helped their cause and the fact none of them did say anything means pretty much nothing to me.

Ah, the absence of evidence is the evidence defense - the number one argument of all tinfoil conspiracy theorists.

 

[Patooka]

None of them claimed that it was about who the FBI was investigating.
Tom

I'm not a lawyer. But do you suppose the people put on trial were possibly following advice of their council for best possible outcome? And do you suppose that (if their council) specifically gave them instructions NOT to appear like a conspiracy theorist, that they would possibly follow that advice when faced with jail time?

I can't imagine them saying anything political or conspiracy related about the FBI would have helped their cause and the fact none of them did say anything means pretty much nothing to me.

Do you suppose Greta Thunberg and Ted Cruz are the same person because they're never seen in the same room together?
Do you think Ben Shapiro is secretly a Hitler fan because he has never publicly said the sentence, "I condemn the Holocaust"?

Or how about an easy one;

Do you have any fucking proof that the Jan6 insurrectionists stormed the Capitol because they were upset with what the FBI was doing AS YOU FUCKING ASSERTED?

 

[Ford]

None of them claimed that it was about who the FBI was investigating.
Tom

I'm not a lawyer. But do you suppose the people put on trial were possibly following advice of their council for best possible outcome? And do you suppose that (if their council) specifically gave them instructions NOT to appear like a conspiracy theorist, that they would possibly follow that advice when faced with jail time?

I can't imagine them saying anything political or conspiracy related about the FBI would have helped their cause and the fact none of them did say anything means pretty much nothing to me.

I am also not a lawyer, but I've worked with a few over the years.

If I were defending a client in a case that could send them to federal prison for years, it would be prudent to explore ALL avenues to exonerate them. Not get them a reduced sentence, but get them out of legal jeopardy completely.

Proof that the FBI was behind the whole shebang? That would be a helluva defense. Sure, you don't want them to "sound like a conspiracy theorist," but to hear the right wing tell it, there WAS a conspiracy, and the evidence (not only of the FBI frame-up job, but of the alleged election fraud) is right there for everyone to see. I'm willing to bet that at many of these defendants went into the initial meeting with their attorneys believing this was an undeniable fact, and that they could prove it. I'm willing to bet that at least some of the attorneys entertained the notion.

"So Jim-Bob, can you walk me through how you 'know' all this? This is your freedom on the line, and I wanna at least hear you out." And if Jim-Bob had a compelling story...or at least one that would introduce a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, it might be a good idea to run with it. If they had actual proof of a set-up? That would not only get Jim-Bob off, but would make his lawyer's career.

None of that happened. Because when Jim-Bob told his tale, the lawyer probably said (in a polite way) "that's fucking stupid, man. If I let you bring that into court you might actually make things worse for yourself." Somewhere along the line - whether it was when they were cooling their heels in jail, or during the long process to bring their case to trial, the January 6th defendants came to the realization on their own that they'd been sold a bill of goods by Trump. That was their defense - not because their attorneys were all part of the "deep state conspiracy" and in league with the FBI - but because it was the truth.

The FBI was not behind January 6th. The election was not stolen. These people got suckered into committing crimes up to and including seditious conspiracy, and they were convicted or copped plea deals because that's what happened.

 

[Rhea]

None of them claimed that it was about who the FBI was investigating.
Tom

I'm not a lawyer. But do you suppose the people put on trial were possibly following advice of their council for best possible outcome? And do you suppose that (if their council) specifically gave them instructions NOT to appear like a conspiracy theorist, that they would possibly follow that advice when faced with jail time?

I can't imagine them saying anything political or conspiracy related about the FBI would have helped their cause and the fact none of them did say anything means pretty much nothing to me.

What causes me to believe that the 1/6 insurrectionists were NOT motivated by FBI behavior, is the evidence that they have said their reasons were about stopping the election.

So now tell us excalty what causes to you believe the opposite? What evidence did you see that caused you to believe that? I am genuinely curious what you saw or read that caused you to conclude, “they were mad about the FBI.”

It didn’t spring our of nowhere. Something caused you to think that. What was it? Tell, us, maybe it will be compelling And we will all change our minds!

 

[steve_bank]

Under Hoover's long reign the FBI was corrupt and essentially a perosnal force run by Hoover. He weilded a lot of power and even JFK-RFK could not remove him.

Was it a real case of conspiracy or was it just agents who got carried away with themselves.

Given Trump's known history of financial corruption I have no doubt there was something between Trump and Russian oligarchs. He was shored up by money through questionable foreign banks linked to Russian money.

That the initial justification was bogus does not exonerate Trump. Like in a crime drama, Trump got off on a technicality.

Trump clearly conspired with others in a planned overthrow of the elections.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“C’mon, I only need 11,000 votes.”
“Just say you recalculated.”
- Donald Trump

 

[RVonse]

So now tell us excalty what causes to you believe the opposite? What evidence did you see that caused you to believe that? I am genuinely curious what you saw or read that caused you to conclude, “they were mad about the FBI.”

It didn’t spring our of nowhere. Something caused you to think that. What was it? Tell, us, maybe it will be compelling And we will all change our minds!

Opinion | Donald Trump Isn’t the Only One to Blame for the Capitol Riot. I’d Know. (Published 2023)

Only by understanding how the rioters lost faith in government can we figure out how to protect our democracy from future attacks.

www.nytimes.com

 

[laughing dog]

So now tell us excalty what causes to you believe the opposite? What evidence did you see that caused you to believe that? I am genuinely curious what you saw or read that caused you to conclude, “they were mad about the FBI.”

It didn’t spring our of nowhere. Something caused you to think that. What was it? Tell, us, maybe it will be compelling And we will all change our minds!

Opinion | Donald Trump Isn’t the Only One to Blame for the Capitol Riot. I’d Know. (Published 2023)

Only by understanding how the rioters lost faith in government can we figure out how to protect our democracy from future attacks.

www.nytimes.com

That is behind a paywall. Would you please summarize the opinion that you linked ?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

None of that happened. Because when Jim-Bob told his tale, the lawyer probably said (in a polite way) "that's fucking stupid, man. If I let you bring that into court you might actually make things worse for yourself." Somewhere along the line - whether it was when they were cooling their heels in jail, or during the long process to bring their case to trial, the January 6th defendants came to the realization on their own that they'd been sold a bill of goods by Trump. That was their defense - not because their attorneys were all part of the "deep state conspiracy" and in league with the FBI - but because it was the truth.

Reminds me of a certain art-of-the-deal-university-money-making-thing-that-duped-a-lot-of-people-too and in the end didn't go so well for Orange Manchild either.

 

[Toni]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

 

[Ford]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

 

[Toni]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Well, yes she is and has for some time been a Russian assert. At least as far back as 2016. She was a member of the Democratic Party but hardly a mainstream democrat, ever.

 

[TomC]

Just list the alleged fucking lies. I'm seriously done clicking on your videos. What have you been lied to about in your opinion?

I just think its hilarious that the video features Gabbard. Nope. Nothing to this whole Russia thing. Just ask Tulsi!

But isn't Gabbard a liberal?

I would not know what more to present or cite if you can not even listen to someone from your own democrat party.

No. Gabbard is not a liberal. She is also no longer a Democrat.

I mean, the other day Russian state TV was singing her praises and calling her their "friend." But nope. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Didn't she do a stint as Tucker Carlson with boobs?

Carlson is very popular amongst American enemies.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Didn't she do a stint as Tucker Carlson with boobs?

Carlson is very popular amongst American enemies.
Tom

Yep. Which is odd how RVonse missed that considering that he believes Tucker is a legitimate source of information.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So now tell us excalty what causes to you believe the opposite? What evidence did you see that caused you to believe that? I am genuinely curious what you saw or read that caused you to conclude, “they were mad about the FBI.”

It didn’t spring our of nowhere. Something caused you to think that. What was it? Tell, us, maybe it will be compelling And we will all change our minds!

Opinion | Donald Trump Isn’t the Only One to Blame for the Capitol Riot. I’d Know. (Published 2023)

Only by understanding how the rioters lost faith in government can we figure out how to protect our democracy from future attacks.

www.nytimes.com

I'm not allowed to read this without giving conservative oligarch Rupert Murdoch money.

 

[Patooka]

So now tell us excalty what causes to you believe the opposite? What evidence did you see that caused you to believe that? I am genuinely curious what you saw or read that caused you to conclude, “they were mad about the FBI.”

It didn’t spring our of nowhere. Something caused you to think that. What was it? Tell, us, maybe it will be compelling And we will all change our minds!

Opinion | Donald Trump Isn’t the Only One to Blame for the Capitol Riot. I’d Know. (Published 2023)

Only by understanding how the rioters lost faith in government can we figure out how to protect our democracy from future attacks.

www.nytimes.com

You realise that's basically a confession that you are easily swayed by other people's opinions?

I'm not allowed to read this without giving conservative oligarch Rupert Murdoch money.

Murdoch owns the New York Times?