Durham Exposes New Links To Clinton Campaign in Creation of Russian Collusion Scandal

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent links established by Special Prosecutor John Durham and the Clinton campaign.

Here is the column:

To my good friend … A Great Democrat.” Those words written to a Russian figure in Moscow, inside a copy of a Hillary Clinton autobiography, may be the defining line of special counsel John Durham’s investigation. The message reportedly was written by Charles Dolan, a close Clinton adviser and campaign regular whom news reports identify as the mysterious “PR-Executive 1” in the latest Durham indictment, this time of Igor Danchenko.

Danchenko, 43, was a key figure in the compilation of the infamous Steele dossier that led to the now discredited investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential race. But Danchenko, a Russian emigre living in the U.S., seems unlikely to be the Durham investigation’s apex defendant. In fact, Durham describes him at points more like a shill than a spy, an “investigator” who was fed what to report by Clinton operatives such as Dolan.

Durham is known as a methodical, apolitical and unrelenting prosecutor. Thus far, his work seems to betray a belief that the FBI got played by the Clinton campaign to investigate the Trump team. The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the figurative tail if he can get the whole dog — a question that now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham’s indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.

Danchenko’s indictment on five counts of lying to the FBI serves two obvious purposes. First, these counts — with a possible five years in prison on each — are enough to concentrate the mind of any defendant about possibly flipping for the prosecution. Second, indicting Danchenko “hoists the wretch” for potential targets to see and consider that there but for the grace of God — and Durham — go they.

The background details of Durham’s three indictments so far have assembled an impressive list of “great Democrats” who contributed directly or indirectly to the creation of the Russia collusion scandal. Indeed, the collusion case increasingly is taking on a type of “Murder on the Orient Express” feel, in which all of the suspects may turn out to be culprits. While the statute of limitations may protect some, Durham has shown that he can use the crime of lying to federal investigators (18 U.S.C. 1001) as a handy alternative. Targets must admit to prior misconduct or face a new charge.

Thus, Durham clearly seems to be making a meticulous case that the Steele dossier was a political hit job orchestrated by Clinton operatives. His latest indictment connects Danchenko to several intriguing figures and groups that, in turn, relate to the Clinton campaign.

Former British spy Christopher Steele himself has been extensively interviewed by investigators over the years — a long record that comes with inherent risks of contradictions. Notably, Steele recently defended his dossier in a bizarre interview. While admitting that it might have been used by Russian intelligence for disinformation, he stood by the accounts of its most sensational details, such as former President Trump’s “golden shower tape,” despite Durham’s findings to the contrary.

The role of former General Counsel of the Clinton campaign was featured in yet another Durham indictment. Elias’ former partner and Clinton lawyer, Michael Sussmann, was just indicted by Durham. Both Elias and Sussmann did this work through the law firm Perkins Coie, which has strong ties to the Democratic Party. Like Sussmann, Elias was accused for lying about the role of the Clinton campaign in the Russian scandal. Specifically, New York Times reporters accused Elias and the campaign of denying that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign. He later sat next to campaign chair John Podesta when he also reportedly denied the connection. It is not clear if Durham believes that Elias lied to investigators or engaged in other criminal conduct in his key role in the scandal.

Dolan is the latest direct connection between the campaign and the infamous Steele dossier to surface in Durham’s investigation. Dolan had close ties not only to the Clintons but to the Russians as well; he and the public relations firm where he worked had represented the Russian government and registered as foreign agents for Russia.

Durham alleges that it was Dolan, not Russian sources, who gave Danchenko key allegations to put into the Steele dossier, including some of its most salacious claims. Dolan is described as traveling to Moscow to meet with Russian officials who were paying his firm. The connection is notable because American intelligence believed that sources used in the dossier were, in fact, Russian agents and that the dossier may have been a vehicle for Russian intelligence to spread misinformation. However, Dolan reportedly admitted to “fabricating” facts given to Danchenko. Dolan’s attorney now describes him as a “witness” in the investigation.

Danchenko worked for several years at the Brookings Institution, a leading liberal think tank in Washington, as an analyst in Russian and Eurasian affairs — and, as a result, Brookings features prominently in this latest indictment. Around 2010, another Brookings employee had introduced Danchenko to Steele, who subsequently retained him as a contract investigator. (Brookings has become something of a common denominator for many of the figures discussed in indictments and recent stories related to the Russian collusion scandal).

Steele testified in London in a 2019 defamation suit that he had disclosed some of his dossier’s details to Strobe Talbott, then the president of Brookings. Talbott had his own longstanding Clinton ties. Among those, he was an ambassador-at-large and a deputy secretary of state under President Clinton; when Hillary Clinton was secretary of State, Talbott was named chairman of the State Department’s foreign affairs advisory board.

Then there is Hillary Clinton herself. Steele also has testified that it was his understanding that Clinton was aware of his work and the development of the dossier. Yet during the campaign and long afterward, Clinton never admitted that her campaign funded the dossier, despite media and congressional inquiries about that fact. No less an official than campaign chairman John Podesta denied any connection in testimony before Congress.

More importantly, before the Steele dossier was given to the FBI and the press, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Clinton’s alleged “plan” to tie candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Now, with Danchenko’s indictment, Dolan’s name has been added to a seemingly growing array of Clinton associates whom Durham has referenced in the development of the Russia collusion scandal.

Again, it is not known whether Durham has suspicions or evidence of criminal conduct against anyone else beyond Danchenko. But many other figures are at least likely to feature greatly in the conclusions of the special counsel’s final investigative report if many of the details of the indictments to date are any indication.

One thing is clear, though: Too many “great Democrats” keep popping up in Durham’s investigation.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

167 thoughts on “Durham Exposes New Links To Clinton Campaign in Creation of Russian Collusion Scandal”

  1. And…

    Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s White House national security adviser, is the “foreign policy advisor” referred to in the indictment of former Hillary Clinton presidential campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, according to two well-placed sources.

    This is the closest Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation has come to anyone directly associated with the Biden White House.

    It has been widely presumed that the “foreign policy advisor” was Sullivan, though members of the White House press corps failed to ask Sullivan about the issue at a recent press briefing, though the Sussman indictment was already public.

    Sullivan was a key player in the “Russia collusion” hoax whose origin Durham is probing:

    Sullivan was implicated in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, and admitted to Congress under oath in 2017 that he had briefed reporters about his suspicions of “collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign.

    Sullivan also testified, under questioning from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), that he believed former NSA Michael Flynn had conspired with the Russian government — claims that earlier led to Flynn’s ouster. Ironically, Sullivan now holds Flynn’s job.

    Shortly before Election Day in 2016, Sullivan issued a press statement claiming that Trump had a “secret hotline” to Russia via Alfa Bank. Subsequent investigations by U.S. authorities determined that the Alfa Bank conspiracy theory was false.

    Last month, Special Counsel John Durham indicted former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman for allegedly lying to the FBI by covering up his ties to the Clinton campaign when he fed information to the FBI about the Alfa Bank allegations.

    – Steven Nelson, Bruce Golding

    1. Another name added to the list.
      _________________________

      The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

      The co-conspirators are:

      Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,

      James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,Sally Yates,

      James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,

      Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,

      Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,

      Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,

      Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,

      Marc Elias, Igor, Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan et al.

    1. Karen S says:

      “Wonder if the media will print retractions of the Russia hoax stories.”

      Just as soon as you admit that the election being stolen is a lie.

      1. “The flak is the heaviest when you’re directly over the target.”

        – Anonymous WWII Bomber Pilot
        __________________________

        The now-constant presence on the Turley Blog of the “flak” of this communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) troll, promises that the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have something to fear, greatly. The investigation of Special Counsel John “Dudley Will-You-Do-Right” Durham could be interesting, very interesting!

        1. George claims:

          “The investigation of Special Counsel John “Dudley Will-You-Do-Right” Durham could be interesting, very interesting!”

          People are saying that the Durham investigation is a WITCH-HUNT. I tend to agree with all those people who don’t trust the “Deep State” when it aided Mueller and now Durham. I trust only the courts. Let’s wait to see who gets convicted of what. In the final analysis, that is all what really matters.

          1. Did you trust the court of Chief Justice Taney when he told Lincoln he was a criminal violating fundamental law?

            Alas, the brutal despot “Crazy Abe” Lincoln wielded more “power” than a mere Supreme Court Chief Justice, whom “Crazy Abe” had no regard for.

            America has been a criminal fraud since 1860.
            _____________________________________

            “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.

            However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.

            – ConstitutionCenter.org

  2. Millions From Russian Mobsters Saved Trump From Financial Brink

    Throughout the 1990s, untold millions from the former Soviet Union flowed into Trump’s luxury developments and Atlantic City casinos. But all the money wasn’t enough to save Trump from his own failings as a businessman. He owed $4 billion to more than 70 banks, with a mind-boggling $800 million of it personally guaranteed.

    Trump owes much of his business success, and by extension his presidency, to a flow of highly suspicious money from Russia. Over the past three decades, at least 13 people with known or alleged links to Russian mobsters or oligarchs have owned, lived in, and even run criminal activities out of Trump Tower and other Trump properties. Many used his apartments and casinos to launder untold millions in dirty money. Some ran a worldwide high-stakes gambling ring out of Trump Tower—in a unit directly below one owned by Trump. Others provided Trump with lucrative branding deals that required no investment on his part. Taken together, the flow of money from Russia provided Trump with a crucial infusion of financing that helped rescue his empire from ruin, burnish his image, and launch his career in television and politics.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/trumps-russian-laundromat-trump-tower-luxury-high-rises-dirty-money-international-crime-syndicate
    …………………………………………..

    This extensive article is full of names and dates. It make the compelling argument that the Steele Dossier was not even needed to link Trump with questiable Russians.

    1. It’s amazing, real estate developers sell to those that wish to put cash in America so they can leave their despotic countries when the government goes after them. Soon we might have to see Americans doing the same and leaving cash in other countries because under Biden America has adopted many of the same characteristics of the greatest despots of the 20th century.

      Sellers sell to the highest payer. It isn’t politics. It’s business that some are too dumb to understand.

  3. Some posting here say that no meaningful charges will ever be brought but the men and women who perpetrated the treasonous RussiaGate hoax shall always be seen as citizens without a country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Without_a_Country. Even their supposed friends will view them with a jaundiced eye. Their reputations will be forever sullied. They will go to their graves trying to rub the black mold from their hands.

  4. OK, so Trump supporters had no problem when Trump pardoned people that lied and were convicted for lying to the FBI, but………..now that the disgraced Trump is no longer in office, Trump supporters want anyone who lied to the FBI sent to jail. Is that the way the “law and order” crowd wants it?

    1. Dear FishWings, Donald Trump pardoned 74 people and commuted the sentences of 70 others. Not one of these people were charged with lying to the FBI. I read of every single one of the persons and the charges against them. Roger Stone was convicted of lying to Congress. How many Democrats lied to Congress and have not been charged? Fauci comes to mind saying that makes are ineffective. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/full-list-trump-s-last-minute-pardons-commuted-sentences-n1254806. Someone on CNN or MSNBC told FishWings that Trump pardoned people who lied to the FBI and he took the bait hook line and sinker. He wants to believe it so he just does. With FishWings to CNN and MSNBC it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. It seems that the real liar here is the flying pescatore.

      1. Thinkitthrough,

        “ Dear FishWings, Donald Trump pardoned 74 people and commuted the sentences of 70 others. Not one of these people were charged with lying to the FBI.“

        Michael Flynn was. Trump pardoned Michael Flynn. He was charged with lying to the FBI and pled guilty in court.

        1. Dear Svelaz, you are correct. I missed the Michael Flynn conviction for lying to the FBI. One out of 174. However, FishWings used the word people rather than the word person in his description of the people who were pardoned by Donald Trump. It is widely understood that Flynn was set up by the FBI because they already knew the answer to their question. Considering other actions of the FBI (Clinesmith and Strzok) who should we believe.

          1. Trump adviser, Papadopoulos, was convicted & sentenced for lying to the FBI. Trump Deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, was convicted & sentenced for lying to the FBI & conspiring to conceal tens of millions of dollars he and Paul Manafort earned from lobbying for Ukraine.. The federal judge said it is “hard to overstate the amount of lies” and money involved in Gates’s fraud.

            You are clearly right that the Trump Justice Department never charged any Democrats with lying to Congress. Our legal system has a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

        2. The Stalinists threatened Michael Flynn’s family.. When he obtained better legal representation he retracted the guilty plea. Anyone reading the documents can clearly see there was no significant guilt that should have led to his prosecution.

          The government was acting in a fascistic manner. Oh I forget, you think fascism is democracy, republicanism and free markets combined. Stupid, but you have a right to believe whatever you want.

      2. Only some false statements are crimes, whether made to Congress or to the FBI. For it to be a crime, the person has to willfully make the false statement (rather than saying something false by mistake), and the statement has to be materially false. The criminality of lies to the legislative branch is even narrower.

        Read the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

        As Svelaz already noted, Trump pardoned Flynn, and Flynn was indicted for and pleaded guilty to willfully making material false statements to the FBI.

        Same with George Papadopoulos. IIRR, same with Alex Van der Zwaan.

        1. Anonymous, George Papadopoulos spent a whole 14 days in jail and payed $9,500 dollars for his heinous crime. Alex Van Der Zwann was sentenced to 30 Days in prison for lying to the FBI but according to Politico magazine he has no connection to the Trump Russia collusion. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/08/russia-probe-prison-mueller-zwaan-574609. A collusion by the way we now know was created by the Clinton campaign. They knew that they had nothing on anyone but they had to justify the millions of dollars spent on their investigation and Papadopoulos and Alex Van Der Zwann we’re just their fall guys. They pled guilty to a lesser charge so that they wouldn’t lose everything they had trying to defend themselves. They were strong armed into their pleas in order to put a skin on the wall for the Mueller investigation. An apt definition is small potatoes. Thanks for bringing them up.

          1. I see it’s hard for you to say “I was wrong to initially claim ‘Not one of these people were charged with lying to the FBI,’ and even my later statement ‘One out of 174’ was wrong. FishWings was right to use the word ‘people.'” So instead of fully owning up to your mistakes, you now attempt to move the goalposts to your personal opinion that they were “small potatoes.'”

            I don’t care what your opinion is.
            I do care about facts. You got the facts wrong.

            You continue to get the facts wrong. You claim “A collusion by the way we now know was created by the Clinton campaign,” when IG Horowitz confirmed:
            “As we describe in Chapter Three, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos “suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous re lease of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama).” The FBI Electronic Communication (EC) opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation stated that, based on the FFG information, “this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia.” We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC, at the time, FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”

            There’s evidence of multiple instances of members of the Trump campaign colluding with representatives of the Russian government to benefit Trump’s 2016 campaign (e.g., Roger Stone colluding with Guccifer 2.0, a Russian front, in the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails hacked by Russia — a release timed to distract from the tape with Trump’s “Grab ’em by the p*ssy” admission of sexual assault: justsecurity.org/45435/timeline-roger-stone-russias-guccifer-2-0-wikileaks/; Paul Manafort giving campaign polling data to Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik: justsecurity.org/75766/us-treasury-provides-missing-link-manaforts-partner-gave-campaign-polling-data-to-kremlin-in-2016/ ). The collusion continued after Trump was elected (e.g., via Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak).

            “They knew that they had nothing on anyone”

            That’s false, as the discussion above shows. Unfortunately, Trump’s obstruction of justice worked, and they decided not to prosecute the conspiracy. I hope that Garland will now do the right thing and prosecute Trump for obstruction.

            1. Anonymous says:

              “Unfortunately, Trump’s obstruction of justice worked, and they decided not to prosecute the conspiracy. I hope that Garland will now do the right thing and prosecute Trump for obstruction.”

              Doing so would further rip this country apart. Hopefully, Trump will be prosecuted for something that will prove he is a liar, e.g., a tax cheat.

              This country is at a crossroads- which media to believe- Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, BlazeTV and Infowars or CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and the NYT, etc.

              There are two mutually opposed narratives in this nation- one has to win out- because the stakes could not be higher. It remains to be seen whether bloodshed can be avoided.

        2. The FBI had the tapes of the discussion Flynn had. Flynn may have made some mistakes which we all do, but there was nothing material. It was a bogus prosecution. John Podesta did some of the things Flynn was reported to do.

          In the past ATS said he had the words that Flynn said proving his guilt, but then he hedged and obfuscated because ATS didn’t have what he said he had. Deceit and lying best describe your former arguments about Flynn.

  5. I hope that prosecutors will heed the Clarion Call to hold accountable all the individuals connected to the effort to remove an elected President with cunning Sophistry.

    This sophistry reminds one of the 19th century theory of ‘Absence Paradox’, which could go like this ‘No person is ever present, because they are either not in Moscow or alternatively their not in Kyiv, so they must be somewhere else. If they are somewhere else, they are certainly not here.’ The circle of deceit and obfuscation is now unraveling with each indictment, and the stench is spreading like a full stock yard.

  6. I’m from another planet and haven’t been here on Earth long. Who is that ugly itchBay in the photo?

  7. Andrew McCarthy wrote a comprehensive analysis of the Durham investigation and his conclusion is not going to sit well with people like me that believe no one should be above the law. We’ve been arguing on this blog for 5 years about what the facts and evidence prove. And the answer to that depends on whether you value the rule of law and justice more than you do political lawfare. Sadly, the latter dominates the former.

    For all these reasons, Durham has long appeared, at least to my eyes, to be heading toward a narrative final report, not a sweeping criminal indictment. Both of his recent indictments, in their rich detail, are consistent with the theory that “Trump–Russia collusion” was a political narrative concocted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Campaign operatives spun and manufactured the collusion “evidence.” They understood that the Obama administration shared their baleful view of Trump and that the media would be onboard. And with those built-in advantages, they calculated that Obama administration national-security and law-enforcement officials were open to believing and airing dark suspicions about Trump.

    It will make for an infuriating report. But not a criminal indictment.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/where-john-durhams-investigation-is-heading/

    1. Well, after all is said and done it will still just be a theory. A possibility given the lack of any concrete evidence.

      1. A possibility given the lack of any concrete evidence.

        Oh, there’s plenty of concrete evidence, the question is whether that evidence is sufficient to prove a “criminal” conspiracy. I good example is Clinton’s server. They didn’t charge her for the illegal use of a server on the basis they couldn’t prove criminal intent. At about the same time, the Navy prosecuted a sailor for taking an “illegal” photo inside his submarine and I believe transmitting that to family. They didn’t prosecute him on intent, only the violation of the laws and regulations for such an act. Similar violations of the law, just two different standards of justice.

        This report by Durham will likely read like a who’s who of bad actors, across multiple agencies and political offices, that the evidence proves the totality of their actions were to take down a duly elected president. But individually, Durham will lack the evidence that proves the intent of the crime. Without being able to prove the coordinated intent, the worst that will happen to these bad actors will be proving nonfeasance, maybe even misfeasance, but not malfeasance.

        And this is how the rule of law and equal justice is obliterated.

        1. “ I good example is Clinton’s server. They didn’t charge her for the illegal use of a server on the basis they couldn’t prove criminal intent. At about the same time, the Navy prosecuted a sailor for taking an “illegal” photo inside his submarine and I believe transmitting that to family. They didn’t prosecute him on intent, only the violation of the laws and regulations for such an act. Similar violations of the law, just two different standards of justice.”

          Hillary’s use of a private server wasn’t really a criminal violation. It isn’t a crime for a person in her position. She had top security clearance. What having the private server violated was a department policy, not a law. Plus she had a secure server.

          The sailor took pictures of sensitive equipment inside a nuclear submarine and that sailor violated an actual law, not just a policy. Plus the sailor sent those images via unsecured email to relatives. It wasn’t just an “illegal” photo it was an ILLEGAL photo.

          1. Hillary’s use of a private server wasn’t really a criminal violation. It isn’t a crime for a person in her position. — Svelaz

            And this is why your comments cannot be taken seriously…

            1. If it was a crime she would have been charged. It was violation of department policy. Violating department policy isn’t a criminal offense.

                1. Iowan2,

                  “Comey never stated crimes were committed. Only that there was not enough evidence to bring charges of a crime

          2. Svelaz, you say that Hillary’s server was a secure server but she and her lacky CrowdStrike say it was hacked by the Russians. You and Hillary should connect more often to get your stories straight. Just a little reading would help you a great deal in the posting of information rather than disinformation. Theirs an old adage. “Listen more than you speak”.

            1. Thinkitthrough,

              “ Svelaz, you say that Hillary’s server was a secure server but she and her lacky CrowdStrike say it was hacked by the Russians. ”

              You must be very confuse. Hillary’s private servers were never hacked. What WAS hacked was John podesta’s laptop.

            2. The DNC servers were hacked, and CrowdStrike said that it was Russia.

              Clinton’s server was not hacked, and CrowdStrike didn’t make claims about her server.

              As for “Just a little reading would help you a great deal in the posting of information rather than disinformation,” you clearly need to take your own advice.

        2. One question Durham seems to be dancing around is the DNC email leak to Wikileaks and the murder of Seth Rich on July 10, 2016…

          1. The FBI never took possession of the DNC server for analysis, right? Of all the no-knock raids they have tried to justify, that was curiously one they avoided like the plague.

            1. The FBI both asked for and received byte-for-byte copies (images) of relevant data:

              Crowdstrike: “We worked closely with law enforcement and provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI as requested.” “June 2016: The FBI requested forensic information, indicators of compromise (pieces of malicious code) that CrowdStrike discovered on the DNC computer network. With DNC permission, CrowdStrike continued to share information from the breach through December 2016, including “digital images” or copies of hard-drives.” “When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” It involves making an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives.”

              Testimony under oath from Shaun Henry of CrowdStrike, again referring to images (byte-for-byte copies):
              Mr. Schiff: And during those hundred or more contacts, did the FBI ever tell you that they needed the DNC server for their own forensic analysis?
              Mr. Henry: They asked us to provide to them the images of the computers and the results of our collection. They did ask for that, and we shared that with them. … I believe that there are a couple of actual digital images, which would be a copy of a hard drive that we also provided to the FBI. And there were — we’re talking about, I don’t know the exact number, but in excess of 10, I think, hard drives.

              Mr. Schiff: And those copies of the drives allow you to create a duplicate virtual environment as the DNC server?
              Mr. Henry: Yes.

              1. The FBI both asked for and received byte-for-byte copies (images) of relevant data:

                DNC: Hi, this is Mary at the Democratic National Committee. I want to report that our server was hacked by the Russians.
                FBI: Oh, that’s creepy. I’m sorry for your loss. Do us a solid and have an IT company send us a digital copy of whatever you consider to be relevant data and we’ll get right on it.
                DNC: Oh! That’s so very nice of you. Our party appreciates your friendly service.

                Roger Stone was unavailable for comment.

                1. Apparently you can’t present a factual discussion, as the facts don’t back you up, so instead of turning to facts, you turn to fiction.

        3. “Similar violations of the law, just two different standards of justice.”

          No, not similar violations of law. The role of intent varies across laws. One law may require materially corrupt intent (e.g, lying to the FBI), whereas another law may only requiring a purposeful act, regardless of intent (e.g., knowingly taking a photo of a classified area).

        4. Olly….Intent is not part of the elements of that particular Statute…..when Comey talked about intent he was flat wrong….knew he was wrong….but was looking for a way to cover for Clinton and the AG Loretta Lynch.

          Since when does the Director of the FBI issue a Declination of Prosecution Letter for the DOJ…..short answer….before Comey did….NEVER!

          It is not within his jurisdiction to do so.

    2. @olly … I guess where all this is headed, based on McCarthy’s several buckets of cold water, is that one side will eventually find that these “abuses of power” are, in fact, criminal. And that their side’s uses of power are _not_ criminal. Their opponents will call it the criminalization of politics, and there will be a measure of truth in that, too. But it won’t matter, because at that point the balance will have been tipped for good.

      And that is when our politics, and our country, may well be lost.

      1. Or perhaps both sides simply continue consuming more time and more money with these (well warranted) special prosecutions, and our politics reaches a point in which nothing of real substance is ever actually accomplished. More and more denouncing, less and less accountability. I guess we’re already there. It only gets worse.

      2. And that is when our politics, and our country, may well be lost.

        You’ve summarized very well what Bastiat warned:

        Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

        Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

        Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!
        http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

  8. Didn’t Susan Rice say; Obama was to be kept in the loop, and do things by the Book? What book would that be ? What Book would that be?

    1. They are not lies S. Meyer. They are opinions. Just like Trump’s opinions. I though you made that clear to everyone.

      1. “They are not lies “

        You you know how we can tell when you are lying? When your name appears at the top of a comment.

        Let’s get back to the specifics of fascism, socialism and nazism. You failed that miserably and keep running away from it.

        1. S. Meyer, they are not lies, they are opinions. You made that quite clear multiple times.

          Jesus, S. Meyer you’re still hung up on that discussion?! I didn’t know I occupied space in your mind that much. I’m flattered.

            1. No, Anonymous the Stupid, they live in my trash can and I take note of them every time I take the trash out.

          1. Be flattered, but you look stupid and I am not the first one to point that out. You also need to learn the difference between opinions and facts, so when you provide your meritless opinions, you don’t call them facts.

  9. Many thanks Jonathan and have re-blogged (UK blog) with this intro:
    ‘Our focus on easy-to-read insights into this “Worse than Watergate scandal” continues because details and implications appear to connect not only into the ‘Two Presidents’ and ‘October Surprise’ prophecies of 2008 and 2021 brought by Kim Clement  and Amanda Grace, but also into finer points of the Devolution Theory of continuance of secure government – more later!’

      1. Apologies for brief reply but comment appeared on my blog’s desktop as about to close as dinner being served. But my first didn’t take quickly and then found your comment’s here.
        Over several years I’ve been monitoring Christian prophets for accuracy (over 300 examples fulfilled or in process). Those I refer to in this re-blog are noteworthy.

  10. *This is off topic* – This administration has announced that our highways are designed to be “racist”. These people are absolutely off the wall and will continue to double down. 2022 hurry!

    1. That’s actually true. This is in reference to what Secretary of transportation Buttigieg said about how some highway projects were designed with racism in mind.

      Highways were intentionally built to segregate black neighborhoods from white neighborhoods. In NYC bridges were intentionally built too low for buses to pass thru to prevent black people from accessing popular beaches. Buttigieg was talking about this guy, former state and municipal officer Robert Moses. “ While Republican politicians and conservative pundits wasted no time making fun of Buttigieg over his comments, he was actually referencing Robert Caro’s seminal biography The Power Broker, about former state and municipal officer Robert Moses and his efforts to reshape New York City.

      Caro writes that Moses particularly wanted to prevent poor Black families from having access to Long Island’s Jones Beach State Park. Besides vetoing an expansion of the Long Island Rail Road for that reason, he sought to limit access to buses. Specifically, Moses built bridges across the new parkways that were too low for buses to pass. Furthermore, to enter the parks, buses needed permits, which were often denied to those carrying Black residents.”

      Here’s more about the validity of Buttigieg’s claims. Which have been confirmed true.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/08/this-is-why-its-useful-talk-about-historic-examples-institutionalized-racism/

      1. Svelez – Maybe next week he’ll determine the Wright Brothers were racist for inventing the airplane to flyover black neighborhoods? The Demsocialist can’t point to anything they’ve done good for the nation hence EVERYTHING is racist to distract.

        1. Margot, the exaggeration only deflects from the issue that the secretary of transportation correctly pointed out. The reason why so many things have a link to racism is because this nation was indeed racist in many of its institutions. Racism didn’t end when slavery was abolished. It was quite prevalent long after the 14th amendment was ratified. Segregation was quite common up to the late 1960’s.

          1. Svelaz lacks historical perspective and drowns intellectually because of that lack.

            The entire ancient world had slaves of all colors, and the stain on the American Constitution is that it did not address the slave issue in the context that all men are created equal. We paid dearly for that with a Civil War and over half-million dead.

            One cannot forget that it was the English-speaking people working to end slavery that exists today in Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the world. What is impressive is that America quickly changed from a racist America with slaves to an abandonment of slavery. Then America took on racism, and it very quickly was disappearing only to reappear because of the racist incitement of Democrats under Obama and since then.

            Another point in time is LBJ’s Great Society which led to declining opportunities for black people. This decline is well researched and statistically demonstrated, but racism is something the powerful white and blacks use to gain more power and money for themselves.

            Another point is when Democrats decided to give up on Martin Luther King’s character, which is more important than color. Democrats of today push racism almost everywhere.

            Robert Moses did some great things, but he was not a champion of the people, whether black or white, and did the same thing to both groups, but he did succeed in building amazing parkways, beaches, and other things.

            What Svelaz does is provide his usual ignorance in an argument that he gives almost all the time. He has no historical perspective and uses a stupid approach to knowledge. If people were banned from a specific place and Svelaz wanted to demonstrate sexism, he would say sexism is prominent because they exclude women, even though men are banned as well.

            He, like other lefties on this blog, is not to be trusted. He extracts talking points, but did he read the book “The Power Broker”? No, he didn’t. I did. That is why I find discussing things with Svelaz to be a waste of time.

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ The entire ancient world had slaves of all colors, and the stain on the American Constitution is that it did not address the slave issue in the context that all men are created equal.”

              We did address the slave issue alright. What we never did was address the issue of racism. The very source of why slavery was acceptable at one point and why it was still acceptable to view blacks as inferior long after the civil war. Racism pervaded this nation’s institutions well into to the late 70’s and policies from those years prior still were on the books.

              “ Robert Moses did some great things, but he was not a champion of the people, whether black or white, and did the same thing to both groups,…”

              So what are some examples of Robert Moses doing the same thing to white folks? It seems you are aware of them if you are saying that he did the same thing to white people.

              “ That is why I find discussing things with Svelaz to be a waste of time.”

              But still you continue to do so because you’re obsessed with one particular discussion.

              1. First time commenter, born Long Island, learned about Robert Moses in elementary school in the 70’s, when i told my grandmother in queens about it, she said how is it racist? Most everyone was poor and most people of all colors in the city didn’t own cars

              2. “We did address the slave issue alright. What we never did was address the issue of racism. The very source of why slavery was acceptable at one point and why it was still acceptable to view blacks as inferior long after the civil war.”

                You are too ignorant to know what racism is or isn’t. Slavery was not particular to color. Slaves could be of any color, race, and religion.

                “So what are some examples of Robert Moses doing the same thing to white folks? ”

                This statement, once again, demonstrates your ignorance. I sometimes wonder how you got through life. I don’t care to answer your questions because when I explained why you were wrong about fascism, you ran away again and again. However, my last email gave one example of the question you asked. If I were able to edit it out, I would do so. Knowledge in your head is a dangerous commodity.

      2. @Svlez: Do you even consider what words mean, or do you just regurgitate them? “[] NYC bridges were intentionally built too low for buses to pass thru to prevent black people from accessing popular beaches.” has got to be in the pantheon of most ridiculous things ever said. Did this grand conspiracy against blacks extend so far that they were only ever to ride on unusually tall buses? So, not only can we tell that a person is racist because they’re white but we can also label every passenger on a bus as racist if it’s not as tall as black people buses?

        Can you honestly believe and defend that? More to the point, can you do so with a straight face??

        1. Hickhead,

          This happened during the 50’s when segregation and racism was quite common. The low bridge was intentionally built too low to allow buses that came from majority black or Puerto Rican neighborhoods. The most direct road to the beach from those neighborhoods had the lower bridges compared to roads that led from white or more affluent neighborhoods. It was intentional. The link to the source is up thread.

          It’s not out of the norm for this country’s history with racism.

          1. @Svelaz: Thank you for your response.

            You seem to e backpedaling from your stance that blacks only had access to freakishly tall buses, and this was done “to prevent black people from accessing popular beaches.” Your goal post is now that the “most direct road to the beach” was intentionally done so the taller buses could not take the most direct route.

            You miss the point: How did the taller buses get into black neighborhoods? Were they built inside the “low bridge” perimeter or driven in from the outside? If they were driven in, what prevented them from driving back out??

            I’m fine with honest debates about racism — as should we all be. But hyperbolic “to prevent” as opposed to “[least] direct” statements are not at all helpful. The latter is an intellectually honest position, while the former is just bring-me-my-fainting-couch crocodile tears (or, possibly, just a crock without the dile).

            1. This Moses guy also blocked construction of a spur line of the subway from black and Puerto Rican areas from connecting with the beaches, so without a bus (due to low overpasses) or a subway, and considering that most blacks and Puerto Ricans didn’t have cars, this served as a barrier to prevent them from being able to get to the beaches. That is is the racism that Mayor Pete was referring to, but never let the facts get in the way of one of Tucker’s insult sessions. Just like he mused about Mayor Pete or his husband Chasten “breast feeding” their twins. I fail to see how the disciples cannot find such comments offensive.

              In the city where I live, when the interstates connecting to the downtown were built decades ago, the designers intentionally chose predominately-black areas to tear down houses, cutting entire neighborhoods in half. I doubt that this city was unique in that regard.

              1. blacks and Puerto Ricans didn’t have cars, this served as a barrier to prevent them from being able to get to the beaches.

                Blacks cant swim.

              2. Have you ever actually been to NYC? The F train had connected the city to Coney Island since 1917

            2. Hickhead,

              “ You seem to e backpedaling from your stance that blacks only had access to freakishly tall buses, and this was done “to prevent black people from accessing popular beaches.” Your goal post is now that the “most direct road to the beach” was intentionally done so the taller buses could not take the most direct route.”

              No backpedaling here. Just adding more details for context. Where you seem to be confused is suddenly referring to taller buses. All buses were the same. The roads leading to the beach from black neighborhoods had purposely designed bridges that where too low for buses coming from those neighborhoods vs bridges on roads from white neighborhoods. The intent behind the lower bridges was to prevent buses carrying black and Puerto Rican residents from accessing the beaches from their neighborhoods. They could still access them mind you. However it required them to take a long circuitous route that involved getting on buses that used the route available to white neighborhoods. That means longer rides and paying more.

              1. Svelaz,

                You’re confusing “prevent” with “inconvenience.” When you refer to “[t]he roads leading to the beach from black neighborhoods” do you mean *every single* road? The mean old white people waited until all the blacks moved into a single area, and then lowered the bridges to create an isolated island of sorts?? They left one bridge that was tall enough for buses, and then lowered them once the buses were inside?

                Again, I ask, How did the taller buses get into black neighborhoods? Were they built inside the “low bridge” perimeter or driven in from the outside? If they were driven in, what prevented them from driving back out??

                I have the suspicion that they were, in fact, driven in from outside the low-bridge island. If that were the case, bridge design *prevented* nothing. There may have indeed been racism involved in making it more difficult/inconvenient for blacks to get to the beach: but that’s wholly different than trapping them inside their neighbors. Until leftists can stop misusing the English language, it will be very difficult to have honest discussions about race. I would respectfully suggest that you look through a dictionary while laying on your fainting couch.

            3. Hickdead,

              Robert Moses probably had the attitude of many towards those not in the elite class. He didn’t even like himself and preferred not to consider himself Jewish. Moses didn’t like his brother either.

              He had almost complete control over the esthetics and passageways limited by budgets that he broke through. He wielded tremendous power unheard of. His building projects went all the way up to Niagara Falls and through Long Island. He was a brilliant man and brilliant as far as the laws were concerned and could box in others who disagreed.

              Svelaz hangs onto bits of knowledge given to him, but he does not understand them, so he draws improper conclusions and almost always has his facts wrong.

              Did Moses like blacks? I don’t think he disliked them, but he didn’t concern himself with people. Though Moses was spectacular building parks, he would forget access to ways for baby carriages and the like. He focussed on a vision, not the people and in doing so, he caused a lot of pain to those in the wrong place, and that was not those from the elite class. I don’t think it was racism on Moses’s part to deny access to busses to Jone’s Beach; instead, it was his grander view that dominated his thinking.

              Svelaz makes it seem that Moses built such low bridges everywhere. That is not true. One has to remember that buses travel all over the Metropolitan area today, and they don’t stop at one point to lower the bus’s roof.

              I am tired of the foolishness of Svelaz and the BS he brings to the blog. Racism pre WW2 existed, no doubt, but it was disappearing until Obama and the new mistresses of CRT.

            4. “If they were driven in, what prevented them from driving back out??”

              A noble effort — lost on those whose racism subverts their ability to reason.

      1. “Documented”…that concept’s proposal was documented, printed on pages but it’s only conjecture. It was never proven. Documented is a slick word though.

        1. Historian Kevin Kruse about the role of racism in roadways:
          “Historian explains how modern Atlanta traffic traces back to segregation”
          https://www.11alive.com/article/news/historian-explains-how-atlanta-traffic-traces-back-to-segregation/85-1d393b0d-a2ed-4695-9155-001c88d4ca60

          More from Kruse about historic comments about roads:

          “Eisenhower’s administration was accused of promoting socialism by the far right. Here’s conservative radio host Clarence Manion denouncing the interstate highway system, among other things, as ‘creeping socialism.'”
          https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1098298398271291393 [includes an image from a newspaper at the time with the quote]
          Additional background here: historynewsnetwork.org/article/177917

          1. The constitution created the federal govt with enumerated powers. All other things were left to the States or The People.

            The federal govt has no power to fund interstate highways.

            1. SMH that even though we’ve discussed this, you still don’t understand that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” and you prefer to deny that interstate highways are part of the general welfare.

              1. Ask the founders if they thought what they signed would mean that the Constitution had no meaning. They would call ATS what he is, ignorant.

                Why did the founders list in the Constitution what the federal government could do? Because the rest was left to the states and the people, but the founders created a way of changing the Constitution. Through Constitutional Amendments.

                General welfare does not mean what you think it does. It is, however, a convenient ruse for those that abhor the Constitution and America.

              2. @5:07 Anon: “promote”. You left out the word promote. [Congress shall… provide for the common defense and **promote** the general welfare]. Leftists tend to want to flip that around, but the words are what they are.

                Objectively, Mr. Biden has broken most of the preamble. so far he has:
                1) Failed to listen to We the People
                2) Abrogated Justice by investigating school-aged parents as terrorists and raiding the homes of journalists with ridiculous pretenses (a missing diary is now a federal crime?)
                3 Incited rage against those with whom he disagrees, which is far removed from domestic tranquility
                4) Rather than promote the common defense, has demoted, denigrated, and defanged the military with inane gendersim
                5) Exterminated the general Welfare by inviting anybody who wants to infiltrate our country to just ignore the immigration process in its entirety
                6) Endangered the Blessings of Liberty the People and their prosperity with extra-constitutional mandates, insane, crushing taxes and regulations, and astronomical spending (which floods the market with paper dollars, making each one worth much less than face value
                7) Has excommunicated and revoked the ordination of the Constitution and seems to be proud of actions that he doesn’t have the authority to do yet does them anyway, daring the courts to intervene

                The last, remaining vestige is forming a more perfect Union, and that’s under attack as well.

                To your point: While Article 1, Section 8 does empower Congress to establish post Roads, it does not provide carte blanche to build and maintain a national highway system. Yes, it may be imminently useful, but its constitutional footing is equal to federally-funded pubic education — which is to say zero.

                1. Uh, #2 should read: parents of school-aged children. School-aged parents may be technically possible, but that’s a moral discussion to be had some other time.

                2. Hickdead,

                  “You left out the word promote.”

                  No, I didn’t. I was not misquoting the Preamble. I was correctly quoting Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C1_2/

                  “Leftists tend to want to flip that around, but the words are what they are.”

                  I agree that the words are what they are. They are exactly as I quoted them.

                  As for your opinion about the interstate highway system, take it up with the many jurists who disagree with you.

          2. As an advocate of the left, ATS should be cursing the highway system. It connected the country together and permitted sprawl. That led to increased use of carbon emitting machines all over the nation.

  11. <>

    The FBI was not duped by the Democrat crooks. The FBI was in on the attempted coup.

    It’s an indisputable fact that the CIA told the FBI that Carter Page was one of their assets. The FBI doctored the document – effectively lied to the FISA Court – to strengthen its application for a warrant to spy on Page, and by extension spy on everybody else Page communicated with in the Trump campaign and elsewhere.

    I don’t see the FBI as dupes of Democrat crooks. More like co-conspirators.

  12. Let’s remind everyone that the allegations against Russia meddling in the Trump campaign were true. The evidence against Trump himself was inconclusive. If you don’t believe me then go read the Senate report.

    1. The senate report is also compromised. It’s both what questions were not asked of the people investigated and those protected people who were excluded from questioning and not investigated at all.

      1. @John Schwarz: exactly, They didn’t not prove that Mr. Trump *didn’t* conspire. Therefore, logically, if he weighs the same as a duck, he’s made out of wood, and so we should burn him! Perfectly clear.

        After all, he did turn me into a newt.

      2. The Senate had a Republican majority at the time, so the head of the SSCI was a Republican. The SSCI report on Russian interference had 100% bipartisan approval by members of the committtee.

        Here are the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that produced the report:

        Republican majority:
        Richard Burr, North Carolina, Chairman
        (until May 15, 2020)
        Marco Rubio, Florida, Acting Chairman
        (from May 18, 2020)
        Jim Risch, Idaho
        Susan Collins, Maine
        Roy Blunt, Missouri
        Tom Cotton, Arkansas
        John Cornyn, Texas
        Ben Sasse, Nebraska
        Democratic Minority:
        Mark Warner, Virginia, Vice Chairman
        Dianne Feinstein, California
        Ron Wyden, Oregon
        Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
        Angus King, Maine[20]
        Kamala Harris, California
        Michael Bennet, Colorado

        According to you, Republicans like Burr, Rubio, Cotton, Cornyn, and Sasse chose not to ask important questions and not to investigate relevant people. According to you, what questions did they fail to ask and what people did they fail to investigate?

        1. Anonymous, To quote St. Ronnie of Reagan, “There you go again” and pointing out facts to people that have no interest in facts is fruitless.

          1. I disagree. I think it’s important to continue pointing out that facts matter. Too many people here clearly don’t care about facts, but they’re not going to silence me, because I do care about facts.

            1. I applaud you for pointing out facts. I just wonder how long you will continue to do so until you are blue in the face?

              Isn’t it interesting that Turley unwittingly attracts so many Trumpists with whom he does not share their paranoid view of a Deep State and the Big Lie? I have argued that he should disabuse them of their misperception. It is irresponsible for him not to do so because it feeds the general distrust of the rule of law which he has taken an oath to serve.

              When all the defamations and bad actors move from the court of public opinion to courts of law, Turley will no longer be able to placate his Fox News audience. He will have to side with the justice system’s verdicts despite all the protestations of his fan base.

              I am going to enjoy watching them turn on Turley.

              What do you think?

              1. Jeff,

                Right now, I’m more concerned about the harm he’s doing. He may “not share their paranoid view of a Deep State and the Big Lie,” but he is unwilling to confront them about those views, even though such views harm the country.

                Whatever schadenfreude I may eventually feel pales in comparison to my concern about that harm. The question is: should I continue to spend time here? Speaking truth to those who prefer comfortable lies has its value, but I can likely find other things that have a better [social benefit]:[time expenditure] ratio.

                1. Anonymous says:

                  “Right now, I’m more concerned about the harm he’s [Turley] doing. He may “not share their paranoid view of a Deep State and the Big Lie,” but he is unwilling to confront them about those views, even though such views harm the country.”

                  Yes, Turley’s silence is damning, but he has sold out to Fox. Ostensibly because he was rightfully aggrieved by being vilified by the Mainstream media and Democrats for willing to speak on behalf of the Republicans in Trump’s Impeachment. I don’t begrudge him for taking a sizable fee to work for the Republicans. That is what a lawyer does- they represent their client. And, as I have pointed out, the question for Turley was not a question of principle, but a matter of practice. He thought the Democrats needed more time to flush out the facts. But, I have never read WHY he thought the accumulated evidence was insufficient. He simply pointed to the fact that not every witness to the events at hand had been forced to testify before the House which as we know was forestalled by Trump.

                  Tell me, do you ever listen to the Mark Levin radio show or Fox prime time? Do you hear what they are saying?

                  1. I don’t have a TV, and I seldom watch TV news online, though I’ll sometimes watch a news or opinion segment about something after reading about it piques my interest (and the clip might come from the right or the left). I get most of my news via articles, supplemented by NPR, select CSpan coverage, and tweets from sources I trust.

                    I’ve never listened to Mark Levin. It’s bad enough to deal with the many dishonest conservatives here and the occasional clips from gaslighters like Tucker Carlson. I’m glad to no longer be listening to Trump’s pathological lying when he was President.

                    1. Anonymous,

                      As much as I find it repulsive, I force myself to scan Fox prime time at night if for no other reason to see if Turley makes a rare appearance to bolster one of Fox’s false narratives.

                      You really should give a listen to Levin on the radio since he fancies himself as an activist trying to convince Conservatives and Republicans to label Democrats and Leftists as “American Marxists.” He wants to further polarize this country. His is the second most listened to show on Hate Radio behind Hannity so he is very influential as well as hosting a 1-hour Sunday TV show on Fox.

                      I call Turley an abject hypocrite because he deplores our “age of rage” (as he calls it) and yet works for Fox which broadcasts Levin who is second only to Alex Jones in his rage against the Left. Turley obscures his hypocrisy by NEVER mentioning the existence of Levin so that he can claim disingenuously that he is unaware of his antics. Of course, he is well aware, but his silence cannot be shamed because he cannot be held accountable, for he will not be interviewed or respond to our questions.

                      Nor does attorney Levin mention the embarrassing fact that his Fox Constitutional colleague, Turley, ignores him and his big-selling book because it would not behoove him to create a in-house controversy to be exploited by the Left. Levin has interviewed many Trumpist lawyers, but never Turley.

                      The fact that Turley avoids mentioning ANY of his Fox colleagues is the best indication that he does not ascribe to their lies. It seems Fox is content to allow Turley to remain aloof until he is called upon to underscore some legal issue to the Right’s advantage. In the meantime, like a good lawyer, he serves his client Fox by undermining the credibility of its cable and media detractors *without* having to endorse and advocate for its lies.

                      Even in this limited role, Turley’s enabling of Fox is a disgrace, but I gather he became embittered by the Leftist criticism he received for testifying on behalf of Trump, the mainstream media mischaracterizations of his Impeachment testimony, and the personal attacks on his character such that he felt that the only avenue open to him as a commentator was at Fox. When he departs Fox, he will not be able to remove that stigma at least as far as his Liberal colleagues and academics are concerned.

                2. Anonymous says:

                  “Whatever schadenfreude I may eventually feel pales in comparison to my concern about that harm. The question is: should I continue to spend time here? Speaking truth to those who prefer comfortable lies has its value, but I can likely find other things that have a better [social benefit]:[time expenditure] ratio.”

                  I understand your dilemma. I often wonder the same thing. I do think it is important that we make a record of our pushback to Trumpist lies in the event that an undecided reader happens to peruse this blog. We want him or her to know that there is no truth to much of what is commented here.

                  I appreciate your efforts because you are more familiar with the minutiae of these affairs than I. I am learning from you.

                3. “The question is: should I continue to spend time here? Speaking truth to those who prefer comfortable lies has its value,”

                  Your goal in life is to push your ideology on others and enslave as many people as you can through lies and deceit.

        2. Burr is corrupt. I think he got caught up with insider stock trading. Somehow Warner got control of the committee.

          The larger fact, establishment Republicans worked as hard to get rid of President Trump as Democrats. It is intentionally deceptive to claim purity of some statement or position by saying “thats what Republicans said”

          1. I forgot, The committee, Warner specifically got caught giving classified documents to the media. The entire committee is corrupt.

          2. “Somehow Warner got control of the committee. ”

            Not when this report was produced, no.

            Warner is now chair because there’s a 50-50 split plus 1 (VP Harris) in the Senate, but Warner wasn’t chair at the time.

            “The larger fact, establishment Republicans worked as hard to get rid of President Trump as Democrats.”

            BS. Your opinion is not a fact (so don’t lie that it is a fact) and is contradicted by the fact that Republicans in Congress could have gotten rid of Trump by having a trial with witnesses either of the times that Trump was impeached.

            1. BS. Your opinion is not a fact

              Nobody is honestly claiming all registered Republicans supported President Trump. That would be stupid

              Have you heard of Liz Cheney? She’s the public face of Republican resistance. Leading a large cabal of establishment Republicans that were desperate to protect their rice bowl

              I never claimed Warner was the Chairman…I said somehow he gained control of Burr, thus the Committee. Warner’s henchman took the fall for leaking classified documents. Warner got caught in a sting looking for leakers. Again, all of this by Warner, the titular head of the committee.

              All of this is public knowledge

              1. Neither you nor I were talking about “all registered Republicans.”

                You falsely claimed that “establishment Republicans worked as hard to get rid of President Trump as Democrats.” That’s BS. The “establishment Republicans” in the Senate could easily have joined the Democrats in the Senate to remove Trump from office. Not only did they NOT do that, they also refused to allow witnesses to be called.

                “Have you heard of Liz Cheney?”

                Yes! Did you know that she is a member of the House and not the Senate? Are you confused about how removal from office works in the Senate? (The House can only impeach. Only the Senate can remove the person after impeachment.)

                “I said somehow he gained control of Burr, thus the Committee.”

                No, you said “Somehow Warner got control of the committee” without mentioning Burr, and although you’re now arguing “he gained control of Burr,” you’ve provide zero evidence for your opinion.

                Moreover, you are ignoring that the Committee chairmanship shifted from Burr to Rubio in mid-May 2020, and the most significant volume of the 5-volume report was not published until August of 2020. So not only would you have to provide evidence for your opinion that “somehow he gained control of Burr,” you’d ALSO have to present evidence that he gained control of Rubio.

                “all of this by Warner, the titular head of the committee. ”

                Warner was not “the titular head of the committee” when the report was published. He didn’t become the head of the committee until 2021.

                As for “All of this is public knowledge,” no it’s your opinion, and you’re ignoring facts that contradict you.

                1. Many Republicans acted cautiously contrary to Trump and frequently quietly when he first took office. Later Republicans for the most part ceased acting against him.

                  When a comment is made anonymous you have to be careful of the dates. 2020 was later in his presidency, so what you said has little meaning.

                  I don’t think the democrats would have made so much headway against Trump had it not been for Republican support, quiet or otherwise.

        3. When Trump came into office many Republicans hated Trump as much as the Democrats did. Trump was an outsider who rightfully threatened their domain and power.

    2. They also meddled on behalf of clinton, feeding dolan propaganda. Their goal was most likely sow division. progressives fell for it. They were that stupid.

      1. They didn’t “fall for it.” No one can be THAT stupid. They all willingly propagated the lies on behalf of the conspirators.

        1. Numero Uno willing propagator of lies is Rachel Maddow. She willfully, intentionally deceived her audience and fed them outright lies for years and years. Now that all of the lies are falling apart? Crickets from Madcow.

    3. The evidence against Trump was inconclusive because he refused to : 1. be deposed in person or give a statement in person; instead, now-suspended attorney Giuliani wrote responses to written interrogatories that were incomplete and evasive, and he refused to amend or supplement his responses; 2. refused to produce documents that were requested. Of course, the Hate Network crowed that Trump was “exonerated”, a meme repeated by Bill Barr. Trump was never exonerated. The Russians did help him cheat, and he will never be viewed as legitimate for this reason. The head of US Intelligence, Dan Coats, Republican and former member of Congress, was fired by Trump for confirming the truth that Russians did work with Trump’s campaign. The full extent of Trump’s direct involvement was never fully explored, but there’s no doubt that the campaign provided information about polling to Russian hackers who used it to spread lies about Hillary Clinton.

  13. If during an Investigative Team Meeting on a case such as this one….an Agent laid out the information as the Professor does in this article….I know how the investigative lead assignments would be.

    We would consider what Laws applied, what the elements of those crimes were, and then we would set out to determine the usual “Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How” of it all.

    We would track the money, the relationships, transactions, and collect all of the forensic evidence possible then begin potential Witness interviews and assess what they had to say.

    With that in hand, we would analyze the results and determine the Target List identifying the Perps, their roles and actions, and begin to work our way up the food chain during Interrogations.

    Working with DOJ we would offer Plea Bargains to the small fish with minor crimes in trade for information and future testimony in court then use what we got from them to pursue bigger fish.

    In this case extant….the ultimate target is Hillary Clinton as she is the start of it all as she. had to have blessed the scheme even if she did not initially concoct the thing.

    As Obama was briefed by Brennan….we have to ask what was his responsibilities and obligations under Federal Law and the Constitution in this matter and allowed this to go on unfettered and with the cooperation and participation of members of the FBI, DOJ, and some members of the Intelligence Community.

    This is far more serious than Watergate….by far.

    This is probably the closest our Nation has come to seeing a President removed from Office by an organized Coup in the history of this Nation.

    Durham is obliged to ferret out the real truth of the matter and prosecute everyone of those who participated in this and unless he does…..we as a Nation are on the road to perdition.

    1. Wonderful analysis, Ralph Chappell! I would like to see the scenario unfold as you propose. Thank you!

  14. “We are all guilty, so nobody is guilty” has been used many times to defuse responsibility.

    With the able support of the media and the wilful ignorance of Lefties, this will be a Hunter Biden type scandal.

    The end result is that Americans will become more cynical about the system.

    1. The end result is that Americans will become more cynical about the system. — monumentcolorado

      Already there…

Leave a Reply