Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn

Judge Christopher Cooper
Judge Emmet Sullivan

Below is my column in The Hill on the Sussmann trial and the striking comparisons with prior prosecutions of Trump officials like Michael Flynn.  The court has limited the evidence available to the prosecution, the scope of questioning, and cleared a jury that includes three Clinton campaign donors. A jury of your peers is not supposed to literal with an array of fellow Clinton supporters. Those negative rulings continued during the trial, including a refusal to dismiss a juror whose daughter is playing on the same team with Sussmann’s daughter.  For John Durham, it may seem that the only person missing from the jury at this point is Chelsea Clinton.

Here is the column:

The criminal trial of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann began this week with a telling warning from prosecutors to the D.C. jury: “Whatever your political views might be, they cannot be brought to your decisions.” The opening statement by Deborah Brittain Shaw reflected the curious profile of the Sussmann case. Prosecutors ordinarily have a massive advantage with juries despite the presumption of innocence. When pleas are counted, federal prosecutors can report as high as 95 percent conviction rates. However, with Sussmann, prosecutors clearly have concerns over whether they, rather than the defendant, will get a fair trial.

Sussmann’s trial for allegedly lying to the FBI is being heard in the same District of Columbia federal courthouse where former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and others faced the very same charge brought by another special counsel.

The cases, however, could not be more different.

Whereas Flynn’s prosecution was a no-holds-barred affair, Sussmann’s prosecution has been undermined by a series of unfavorable rulings by the court. Special prosecutor John Durham still may be able to eke out a conviction, but the difference in the treatment of Trump and Clinton associates is striking.

Sussmann is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1001 with lying to the FBI during a meeting with then-FBI general counsel James Baker when he came forward with what he claimed was evidence of possible covert communications between the Trump organization and Alfa, a Russian bank. Sussmann allegedly concealed that he was representing the Clinton campaign, which he billed for his efforts.

Shaw told the jury that the FBI “should not be used as a political tool for anyone – not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not anyone.” She then added that the jurors themselves should not use this trial for their own political judgments.

Looking at the jury box, one can understand Shaw’s unease. During jury selection, one juror admitted he was a Clinton donor and could only promise to “strive for impartiality as best I can.” Prosecutors objected to his being seated, but Judge Christopher Cooper overruled them.

In another exchange, a former bartender and donor to far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was told by a Sussmann defense lawyer that neither Clinton nor Trump were on trial and then asked if she could be impartial. She responded, “Yes, knowing that” — which might suggest she would not be impartial if the campaigns were part of the trial.

Other jurors include a woman who said she thought she was a Clinton donor but could not remember; a juror whose husband worked for the Clinton 2008 campaign; and a juror who believes the legal system is racist and police departments should be defunded.

To be sure, D.C. voters chose Clinton over Trump in 2016 by a breathtaking margin: 90.9 percent to 4.1 percent. While liberal and Democratic jurors still can be fair and impartial, Judge Cooper has seated a couple jurors who seemed to struggle with the concept of impartiality.

The most notable aspect of the trial is what will be missing: context. Durham contends that Sussmann was no rogue lawyer. After the Mueller investigation, Durham’s team revealed information about how people affiliated with the Clinton campaign allegedly funded, developed and spread the false collusion claim.

On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated.

This appears to have been an all-Washington effort assisted by key figures associated with a liberal think tank, Democratic members of Congress, and allies in the media. However, it was the role of lawyers like Sussmann that attracted Durham’s interest.

Durham contends that, in addition to allegedly lying to Baker during their meeting, Sussmann sent a text message to Baker the night before the meeting, reading: “Jim — it’s Michael Sussmann. I have something time-sensitive (and sensitive) I need to discuss. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow? I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau. Thanks.”

Notably, the campaign’s law firm was accused by some journalists of hiding the campaign’s role in financing the infamous Steele dossier, which provided the basis for the collusion story. (The Federal Election Commission recently fined the campaign for using the firm to hide those payments.) The Durham team argued that Sussmann’s alleged lying to the FBI was not just some passing omission but a knowing pattern of deceit. That is why one of the first witnesses expected to be called by the prosecution was Marc Elias, Sussmann’s former law partner and the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Elias is not charged with any crime, but at least one reporter has claimed Elias denied the campaign’s connection to the Steele dossier.

Judge Cooper has stressed that this trial cannot be about the Clinton campaign per se, but the specific lie that was told. He specifically barred Durham from arguing that there was a “joint venture” in deception with the Clinton campaign. The judge sharply limited the evidence that Durham can present which, in the words of Politico, “spares the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee … potential embarrassment.”

Without the broader context, the prosecution could sound like a play without a plot — just characters and insular acts. The first witnesses included FBI agents who told the jury that the claims passed along by Sussmann “didn’t make sense” and that the collusion theory was rejected within days of looking at the underlying data. However, Cooper warned that he will keep a tight rein on prosecutors delving into how the underlying data was produced or managed through the campaign.

That is not the only blow delivered to the prosecution by the court. The judge refused prosecution access to some evidence and, while allowing access to some emails between the campaign and an opposition-research firm, he barred their introduction at trial due to the late request from the prosecutors.

The treatment given to Sussmann is in stark contrast to how Trump associates were treated in this same court. In the Flynn trial, Judge Cooper’s colleague, Judge Emmet Sullivan, conducted a series of bizarre hearings, including one in which he used the courtroom flag as a prop to accuse Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” and to suggest that Flynn could be charged with treason — crimes not brought against him. Sullivan then declared: “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.”

Likewise, another judicial colleague, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, refused to grant Trump associate Roger Stone a new trial despite disturbing reports of juror bias.

While the judge in Flynn’s case was eager to remove obstacles from the prosecution’s path, the judge in Sussmann’s case seems to have created a virtual obstacle course for Durham. Durham may be able to jump the legal hurdles, but he will do so without much of his evidence. To paraphrase Charles Dickens in “A Tale of Two Cities,” for a prosecutor D.C. can be the best of venues or it can be the worst of venues.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

465 thoughts on “Tale of Two Trials: How Sussmann is Receiving Every Consideration Denied to Flynn”

  1. Laurie, replies to replies to replies …. only goes on to a certain fixed depth. So if you must keep a conversation going you have to scroll back to the just prior reply button.

  2. Columns like this really raise questions about your objectivity, sir. Sour grapes.

    1. RE:””Columns like this really raise questions about your objectivity,….” The Sussman Trial succeeded in raising questions about objectivity. It brought to mind the dust up regarding the alleged bias of the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone trial. Turley compares and contrasts proceedings as he sees them. What the law is and how the jury is charged is the final act in the drama. The prosecution didn’t prove its case. The question asked of the judge by the jurors makes that clear. All 12 jurors agreed that Durham’s team did not meet the five legal requirements needed to find Sussmann guilty. However, relevant information was certainly uncovered regarding the ‘HRC Gambit’ to satisfy jurors seated in the Court of Public Opinion.

  3. I’ve stated the facts, you’ve stated your opinion.

    As usual for a leftist, you accuse others of doing what you yourself are doing.

    You’re nothing but a sick, sophistic liar. It’s unfortunate that your mother “allowed” you “the use of her body.” Both your parents should be ashamed of you.

    Get lost.

    1. Epstein:

      Just a reminder that in response to your earlier claim that “troubling facts surrounding her death have been swept under the carpet,” I said: Please do identify what “troubling facts” you allege “have been swept under the carpet.” I’d be happy to look at evidence with you.

      I’m still interested in seeing whether you and I can make some progress in coming to agreement on facts/evidence.

      1. The troubling fact is Ashli Babbitt was unarmed when she was killed by a capital policeman when there was no threat to anyone’s life or limb, and the investigation was neither complete nor transparent.

        It’s simple to understand unless one is a hypocrite that finds little value in the lives of those with opposite beliefs.

        1. My question was to Epstein, not you. You do not know what “troubling facts” Epstein thinks “have been swept under the carpet.” If you’re patient, perhaps he will tell us.

          1. Troubling facts are troubling facts no matter where they come from. You don’t want to deal with troubling facts. You only want argue.

    2. Ashli Babbitt was a 105 pound, unarmed woman. A veteran who served her nation with honor and distinction in the Middle East. A loving wife who will never have the opportunity to be a loving mother. Ashli Babbitt did not deserve to die at the hands of the Capitol Hill Police.

      Yet the left minimizes her death. Many even celebrate it. Why? Because of Ashli’s political views. The left knows that Ashli and millions of Americans like her – and more importantly, their ideas – represent a mortal threat to the Democrats’ depressing, dying leftist ideology. An ideology built on a foundation of division, resentment, and anger. The left knows that power is slipping through their fingertips.

      Americans are learning that we are stronger as a nation, as one united people, who can celebrate their common values as well as their differences. Americans are taking their country back. Through the power of ideas. The left will do anything to stop it. Literally anything.

      1. Epstein,

        I’m on the left. I don’t celebrate her death. From what I can tell, the shooting was deemed justified, but I’m open to changing my mind if you present compelling evidence.

        Again: what “troubling facts” do you think “have been swept under the carpet” (quoting something you wrote about it earlier in a different column).

        I agree that “we are stronger as a nation, as one united people, who can celebrate their common values as well as their differences.” But I think it takes work to unite people with different views. You say that you believe in “the power of ideas.” I do too. So I invite you to exchange ideas with me related to Babbitt’s death.

        I think it’s bunk that “The left will do anything to stop it. Literally anything,” and I think that IF you believe “we are stronger as a nation, as one united people, who can celebrate their common values as well as their differences,” THEN you shouldn’t be demonizing a larger fraction of Americans (the left).

        “Americans are taking their country back.”

        People on the left are Americans too.

        1. > People on the left are Americans too.

          Not when they don’t identify as such. (Isn’t self-identification what the Left is all about these days?) Not when they openly condemn the Constitution, attempt to change our most fundamental institutions, lie about America’s founding, and lie about America’s recent history.

          A person who does that is not an American. And people who refuse to do that are finding themselves more and more unwelcome on the Left with every passing week.

      2. Look at your quote “Ashli Babbitt was a 105 pound, unarmed woman” But behind were hundreds of people carrying weapons. If she got through then she could have let the mob in and endangered congress. That is why she was shot and killed.

        1. Show us the evidence that the “hundreds” of people behind Ashlii Babbitt were carrying weapons with which they could “endanger Congress.” (Good luck, because there is no evidence of this. And not only that, these people were let into the building by the Capitol Police. They just opened the doors and let them in.)

          Also, how many of these people behind Ashlii Babbitt were actual rioters and how many were FBI-paid agents provocateur?

          Please, Dale, for your own sake – get an IQ test.

          1. Yeah, the Capitol Police just opened the doors and let them all in. /sarc

            If you don’t know that many people broke in, you’re not paying attention:

            1. I WAS paying attention, Anonymous Democrat Coward. /not sarc/

              The Capitol Police opened the doors and let them in.

              Keep up the gaslighting, though.

            2. Your an idiot. That some broke in and should be arrested, doesn’t mean that the Capitol Police didn’t let people in. Look at the videos, fool.

            3. RE:”Yeah, the Capitol Police just opened the doors and let them all in….” From a NY Times Investigation. Article dated 010622:”The police were outnumbered and responded differently at various breach points, allowing rioters to break through doors using weapons like crowbars or, in some places, to simply walk through as the police stepped aside.”

              1. You sure those are “Trump supporters” breaking into the Capitol in that video and not Antifa DRESSED as Trump supporters? Hmmmm…..

                1. RE:”You sure those are “Trump supporters” breaking into the Capitol in that video and not Antifa DRESSED as Trump supporters?” You’ll have to ask the authors of the piece. Should one expect the House Jan 6 Commission to answer that question beyond a shadow of a doubt? Hmmmmmm?

                    1. RE:”The “January 6 Comimittee?” LOL!!!!!” PREE-CISE-LEEEE!!

        2. RE: “”If she got through then she could have let the mob in and endangered Congress. That is why she was shot and killed.”” Of course!!! How stupid of me not to realize that!! A brilliant tactical move. Her body would be trapped in the breach thus preventing the barbarian hordes from violating the gates of the sacred temple whilst outside, unbeknownst to the shooter, and revealed on video tape rushed to the ravenous media, seen by me with my own eyes in disbelief, Capitol police were opening the gates and waving them in. How foolish of me, not to have recorded that for posterity, now that said evidence has been prohibited from the view of prying eyes. We should all retire to bedlam!!

        3. I don’t blame you for the lack of knowledge you have. There were no guns. I blame the media sources you use. Fox news isn’t the greatest, but it is far more accurate than the rest.

          1. The Capitol Police had no way of knowing whether or not there were firearms, and no way of knowing whether or not Babbitt had a concealed firearm.

            1. Ridiculous! They are trained well enough when people have guns in their hands and don’t always shoot them. They can handle a 110 pound woman entering with her whole body exposed. Police to not kill in that fashion or at least they are trained not to.

              When a policeman sees something funny, he doesn’t know if that person is armed either, and is in a far more dangerous position. Are you advocating that he kill the person and then see what the person was doing?

      3. How can you say that Americans are learning that we are stronger as a united people and then say, the left will do nothing to stop it? I agree that we are a stronger nation a one united people, but “the left” are also Americans whom I believe also want a united America.

        Ashli Babbitt was breaking the law as were others in the Capitol that day. She knew when she climbed through a window that she was breaking the law. The job of Capitol police officers was to protect elected representatives inside the Capitol. Some officers were busy trying to keep the crowd from killing themselves. An officer who was not being attacked yelled for her to stop. When she didn’t, he shot her. It’s tragic that she was killed, but she is not a hero. She was committing a crime. I can’t imagine the pressure those officers must have felt knowing that their job was to protect the V-President and all of the elected representatives and their staffs against people who were yelling “hang Mike Pence” and “kill Nancy Pelosi”. Whether or not you like those politicians, the officers were attempting to protect them against a crowd who were shouting that they were there to commit murder. If police officers hadn’t been fighting for their lives, I believe there would have been more people shot.

        1. RE:””Ashli Babbitt was breaking the law as were others in the Capitol that day……”” There’s video obtained and reported early in the coverage, and which I clearly watched with my own eyes, now likely carefully sequestered from view, of Capitol Police waving the demonstrators through the barricades and into the building, As well, two standing with their backs to the wall, with the mob in front of them, at the door way where Ashley was slain. The officer who fired on her did so from a secure position, on the other side of the doorway, behind a wall, Fired one round only? What say you?? The buck stopped with Nancy Pelosi for security at the Capitol. She refused the offer to bring in the National Guard. What say you?? I’m not defending this inappropriate onslaught. Not everyone there was of the same mind. However, there’s enough revealed for blame to go all around, but the investigation will only serve one agenda, and the committee so empaneled has been to just that and more, contrary to promulgated law.

        2. “It’s tragic that she was killed, but she is not a hero.”

          Same can be said about George Floyd and every other black criminal thug who resisted arrest, high on drugs, and lost their life. They are not “heroes” yet they were elevated to ‘gold coffin sainthood status’ by the Left. It’s truly disgusting.

        3. ” but “the left” are also Americans whom I believe also want a united America.”

          Laurie, look at history. The Nazis were also Germans who wanted a united Germany. The Stalinists and Leninists were also Russians who wanted a united Russia. The Maoists were also Chinese who wanted a United China. Marxists are revolutionaries. That is what we saw from the left in the ‘60s, that is what we saw with every movement, whether it be BLM rioting because a criminal died of a drug overdose, or the attorney general using the FBI against parents that are trying to protect their children. None of this is difficult.

          1. I agree. Look at history. The cry of “it’s us against them” used by my former party (I voted Republican until 2020) sounds to me like the cry of Nazis against Jewish Germans. Nazism required that you must believe the same things they believed to be part of their country.

            Definition of Stalinism from: Merriam Webster: “the theory and practice of communism developed by Stalin from Marxism-Leninism and marked especially by rigid authoritarianism, widespread use of terror, and often emphasis on Russian nationalism.” In my opinion, former President Trump and our Republican Representatives attempt to rule by rigid authoritarianism, i.e., if you disagree with me, you’ll be fired or demoted or I’ll make you want to quit by publically humiliating you; if you disagree with me I will forever seek revenge on you; if you disagree with me, you’ll be censored, censured, called a rino and the entire party will try to ruin any political career you might have had. If you are news media and you disagree with me or criticize me, I will convince all of my followers that you are “fake news”. The only news to be believed is that which is favorable to your president and his party. If you tell your president he can’t do something, he can sneak around and steal money from a government department to do it anyway. If you dare to tell authorities that your president did something wrong or illegal, you will be immediately fired and the president’s party will make the world believe you are a liar. If your president looses an election, you will whine, scream, and cry about it being stolen even if there is no proof of that having happened and you will even attempt to put your president back into the office by any means necessary. You will show what patriots you are by waving American flags while you lie about the election and storm the Capitol of the country. Because you support your president, all of the “rights” in this country will be yours. You don’t have to do anything to protect others from having long-term effects from a virus or even die from a virus. You have the right to tell lies without having to prove them, as long as they are in agreement with your president’s lies. You have the right to threaten people with physical harm or even death if you are a parent who wants your child to not have to wear a mask or doesn’t want your child exposed to a particular curriculum or book.

            I’m not sure what you’re saying about rioting because a criminal died of an overdose, so I won’t address that.
            I will say that the AG has no intention of using the FBI against parents who are trying to protect their children, and the AG never said they were. There are already laws against threatening somebody with bodily harm or death. The AG said that those laws applied to a parent who threatened a school board member or other school officials. If you’re saying it’s ok to threaten people with bodily harm to protect your children from a rule at school, I don’t think you’re being honest, since criminal charges are filed all of the time against people who make those kinds of threats. A parent doesn’t have to use those kind of threats to protect their children.

            1. “I agree. Look at history. The cry of “it’s us against them” used by my former party (I voted Republican until 2020) sounds to me like the cry of Nazis against Jewish Germans. “

              Tell us how. They have legitimate complaints. There were no guns in the Capitol Building. We have seen what many consider an attempted coup of a legally elected President. We have seen an election that was lawless.

              Have you seen the documentary 2000 Mules? If not, see it. It successfully demonstrates how the election was lawlessly won by Biden. Ballot trafficking was one way and that was successfully demonstrated in 2000 Mules. Don’t bother with any opinion in the film. Look at the tracking and the videos. Look at the Mules taking ballots and stuffing them into ballot boxes at least 10 times in a night. Look at them dropping the ballots while trying to stuff them in and look at the gloves being removed after depositing the ballots so that their fingerprints would not appear. Take note how these ballots came from central NGO’s affiliated with the Democrats. That the ballots were dropped off and then taken to the ballot boxes is illegal in every state. Using the lower figures of illegal trafficking and removing just those ballots from Biden, Biden would have lost.

              Their information is documented by unrelated sources. The tracking was very sophisticated and could lead a criminal conviction so I think one cannot deny the numbers of ballots that threw the election to the loser. There is plenty of other evidence in 2000 Mules as well, and outside of that documentary. This election was stolen. It’s hard to believe otherwise. People have tried to show the falsities of 2000 Mules but all were shown to be false and an attempt at deception.

              That you voted for Biden is your business, but now, if you have a fixed retirement, you will be losing probably half your assets. If you work for a living, you will find your costs reducing your standard of living. For the Ukrainians, it led to death and destruction. Take note that the Russians only went into Ukraine under Biden/ Obama and Biden/Harris.

              1. I’m sure it is useless to respond, but I’m going to give it a try, because I still hope that all Americans can some day come together again.

                The “us against them” cry began in 2015 when Trump campaigned on the “us against them” policy and he continued that strategy through his presidency and is still preaching it today. I don’t recall hearing the term “deep state” much until Trump came along. Now all of his followers say he will get rid of the deep state. Has he revealed the members of the deep state? Am I the deep state, because I disagree with him? I assume all those he calls rinos for disagreeing with him are the deep state. Do you see how I could think that his administration was like the Nazis? The “us against them” policy has made it easier for Trump to convince his followers that others have worked against him and cheated to win the election. I had no problem with Trump and others bringing their complaints to the courts. I didn’t even have a problem with them demanding recounts and audits. They had that right. It’s been a year and a half, and now his supporters are saying they finally have proof – the 2000 Mules video. I know a video can be manipulated and lies can be stated as fact in the video to make someone believe there was mass fraud in the election. Why wouldn’t that fraud have presented to authorities instead of being made into a money-making video? I’m sorry that so many believe the video, but until there is valid proof (a video director telling and showing his opinion of what happened is not proof) I can’t be persuade. It is my opinion that believing without proof is what an authoritarian wants us to do.

                What I hear you saying is that if you have a legitimate complaint it’s okay to break the law. Am I misreading that? I assume many Americans have legitimate complaints, but it is not okay to break the law because we have complaints. In addition, what I consider a legitimate complaint may not be what others consider a legitimate complaint. A legitimate complaint can be proven in court.

                Take note that Putin has publicly said that he will look for a way to again manipulate our elections so that Trump can win. I believe that’s because Trump said he would take the US out of NATO, which would leave the US with no help to protect ourselves from Putin.

                The entire world is experiencing inflation. Are you saying that is Biden’s fault? While Trump was president, the whole world experienced a pandemic. If you’re right about inflation, I’d be right to say the pandemic was Trump’s fault.

                1. Laurie, I wrote a detailed response, but I think it was lost and I am not going to rewrite it. It is not worth the time. Almost everything you said was wrong and can be reasonably be proven to be wrong at least in a major degree. Pick any one of your assertions at a time and we can go into depth. You haven’t yet looked for proof of anything. You make blatant assertions without knowledge.

                  I will say you don’t even understand the various ideologies.

                  You say: “Do you see how I could think that his administration was like the Nazis?”

                  Who wants to restrict freedom of speech? The left and the Nazi’s
                  Who wants to control private property? The left and the Nazi’s
                  Who wants to control the press? The left and the Nazis

                  I’ll let you respond to that and we can go from there. Racism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism all come from the same tree. America is different. Instead of focusing on the group, it focuses on the individual.

                  You can go from there or you can remain in your present state.

                  1. Who wants to restrict freedom of speech? As I already said, republicans if you don’t agree with them. I’m not aware of proof of democrats trying to restrict freedom of speech.
                    Who wants to control public property? I don’t know.
                    Who wants to control the press? As I already said, Trump. I’m not aware of proof of democrats trying to control the press.

                    How do you know I haven’t looked for proof. What I require for proof may not be what you require, but yes, I’ve looked for proof.

                    ” America is different. Instead of focusing on the group, it focuses on the individual.” Not sure what you’re saying. America does not focus on the individual to the extent of taking away from the group.

                    1. “Who wants to restrict freedom of speech?”

                      Listen to our President and your fellow leftists.

                      “Who wants to control public property? I don’t know.”

                      You don’t know? You seem to know about all sorts of things. Do you know what private property is? Do you know what the Nazi’s did with private property? The Fascists? The communists?

                      Did you ever hear Obama saying, “ you didn’t build that”? Did you hear the left when Musk made his bid for Twitter?

                      “Who wants to control the press? As I already said, Trump. “

                      What did Trump do to control the press? Nothing. Do you know who Jeff Bezos is? Do you know who owns the Washington Post?

                      It is pointless to discuss these things with you unless you can discuss instead of providing leftist talking points that are meaningless.

                    2. “I’m not aware of proof of democrats trying to restrict freedom of speech.”

                      Then you’re not paying attention. See, as just one example, the “Disinformation Governance Board.”

                    3. Sam, Laurie claims to not be “aware” of “proof” of anything that runs counter to her/his leftist Democrat narrative. That’s her/his go-to response to everything, as well as reminding us that s/he “voted Republican until 2020.” And Orange Man Bad.

                      This person is a kookoo krazy left-wing Democrat operative.

                    4. RE:”“I’m not aware of proof of democrats trying to restrict freedom of speech.”……Turley’s blog, in recent days, has addressed a host of scenarios in which the First Amendment is being plowed under. There has been much conversation in these pages following those posts. A careful examination of the sources of those efforts to curtail freedom of though and expression should make obvious to Laurie, the political persuasions of same. Absent that, you’ve pretty much nailed it, Sam.

                2. “The “us against them” cry began in 2015 when Trump . . .”

                  You’re not even close. That “us against them” goes back as far as Jefferson versus Hamilton.

                  “If you’re right about inflation, I’d be right to say the pandemic was Trump’s fault.”

                  You’re conflating a policy-caused disaster and a nature-caused disaster.

                  “The entire world is experiencing inflation.”

                  So now the Left wants to blame the “world” for inflation in America. What is that, excuse #10?

                  The fact is that inflation in America is caused by three statist policies: 1) A massive increase in fiat money. 2) A massive increase in government spending. 3) Production-killing regulations, especially on the energy industry (spurred on by Biden’s Green zealots).

                  1. RE: “You’re not even close……” She focuses on Trump. You wonder why people are asleep at the wheel?. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/578265-obama-says-change-may-be-coming-too-rapidly-for-many/ A former President of the United States teams up with a flag-waving, Kool Aid serving, Vietnam draft dodger who, in his autobiography told the world exactly how and why he did so some 50+ years ago. To save his pathetic ass and facilitate his music career. Adding insult to injury, Obama’ awarded Springsteen the ‘Medal of Freedom’. About 1,354,664+ have died in wars from 1775 to date to found, maintain, and preserve a nation in which Springsteen could have his career and his medal.

                    1. I do commend you for allowing me to reply to your comment. There are a number of cowards making comments on my posts but removing the opportunity for me to respond.

                    2. To zzdoc: “I do commend you for allowing me to reply to your comment. There are a number of cowards making comments on my posts but removing the opportunity for me to respond.”

                      Laurie, are you of the belief that you shoot first and ask questions later?

                    3. I had previously questioned it, but didn’t have a reply yet. I should have waited. I apologize.

                    4. My internet was just repaired and a large number of emails have just come in. I don’t know what may have been lost.

                      Apology accepted.

                  2. So, it is your belief that Biden somehow caused inflation all over the world? I’m amazed at the influence that Biden has all over the world. If you are saying that, it is an amazing feat. However, your listing of what caused inflation seem to me to apply only to America.

                    1. RE:”So, it is your belief that Biden somehow caused inflation all over the world?…” an intensive review of what has been termed ‘globalism’ and ‘the global economy’, the interdependence among nations which was deemed necessary and so conceived is in order. Hamstring energy resources, the supply chain of goods and services, flood the U.S. with cash, and one creates a wave spreading across the world.

                    2. “So, it is your belief that Biden somehow caused inflation all over the world?”

                      You either can’t read or are dishonest.

                      I wrote:

                      “The fact is that inflation *in America* . . .” (Emphasis added, for the reading challenged).

                    3. “but removing the opportunity for me to respond.”

                      There is no such function on this blog.

                    4. So why is there no “reply” button on some posts, and how can I respond to those posts?

                  3. I’m not the left and I’m not blaming the world for inflation. I’m asking how our president can be blamed for inflation here when inflation is all over the world.

                    1. Laurie:

                      “I’m not the left and I’m not blaming the world for inflation. I’m asking how our president can be blamed for inflation here when inflation is all over the world.
                      ****************************
                      Laurie, when you shut down the pipeline on a major commodity used in the distribution of all other commodities taking us from energy independence to energy dependence, cancel US leases on that same commodity, know that commodity fuels the Western economy (i.e the World economy) , and then picking a fight with a major commodity producer, blame is about the best you can hope for when it comes to inflation.

                      Less Supply, Same Demand equals Higher Proces. Being an imbecile, getting sorta elected as POTUS equals national disaster. Math is fun except when you live it.

                      The Dims hate you Laurie and everybody like you. Wake up.

                    2. “I’m asking how our president can be blamed for . . .”

                      So blame Trump for a pandemic that was “all over the world.” But don’t blame Biden for inflation that is “all over the world.”

                      That’s not consistency or logic. That’s rationalization and being a shill.

                      The obvious response to your “all over the world” excuse is: What political policies are responsible for inflation in those other countries? (Or did inflation just spontaneously erupt?) You can start with this: Same cause, same effect. Then add a dash of Econ 101.

                    3. I guess I’m not brilliant enough to figure out how Biden has caused inflation all over the world. Thanks for attempting to educate me, but I still don’t think our president can cause global inflation.

                  4. I guess Americans in the jefferson v Hamilton era didn’t fall for the “us and against them” line. That does not negate the fact that many Americans have fallen for it in the last 6 years.

                    It is my understanding that Biden directed that fiat money be studied, and production has not been increased.

                    I thought the republicans had been bragging that they had stopped this administration from spending massive amounts of government money.

                    I believe that Biden suspended new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, which did not kill anything was being produced already and does not prevent new oil and gas leases on private lands.

                    If my understandings are correct, then you have not justified blaming Biden for inflation. If you and others are falsely blaming our current president for inflation, I can falsely blame our past-president for covid.

                    1. Looks like your understanding of a lot of issues is just wrong. You could keep believing the BS someone has been feeding you & still go seek out New Media & get some different opinions.

                    2. I am expressing my opinions – even those of us who don’t have a high IQ can form our own opinions without help from any media. If this is your reply to my dispute of your comments, it makes me believe you had no basis for the comments you made. Maybe you’re consuming the wrong media.

                    3. Just go watch: Banned.Video for a couple of months or the past 2 months of archives & you’ll start to get up to speed.

                      Here is one of the many news aggregators: https://thelibertydaily.com/

                      Zerohedge & The Gateway Pundit.

                    4. BTW: I said nothing about you IQ, you brought it up.

                      Just look at Natacha that posts here, maybe she has a high IQ or doesn’t, but she’s as ignorant as a sack of hammers.

                      She remembers a lot of stuff, it’s just that most it is wrong.

                    5. I don’t think I accused you of saying anything about my IQ. I know I brought itup.

                    6. “If you and others . . .”

                      Be more circumspect. Your mask has slipped numerous times.

                    7. Why would I want to be circumspect? I’m not sure what you’re implying about my mask.

                    8. “I guess I’m not brilliant enough to figure out how Biden has caused inflation all over the world.”

                      I guess you just intentionally misrepresent other people’s ideas and arguments — just like other sophists on this blog. Only this time, you’re playing the “golly, gee, I’m-just-little-ol’-Laurie type.

                    9. “I guess you just intentionally misrepresent other people’s ideas and arguments — just like other sophists on this blog. Only this time, you’re playing the “golly, gee, I’m-just-little-ol’-Laurie type.”

                      I don’t know what I’ve said that is a misrepresentation of other people’s ideas and arguments. That should be pointed out to me when I do it by correcting my interpretation of what the poster was saying.

                      LOL! I’m not playing the “golly-gee”, etc. I’m pointing out that everyone commenting seems to be brilliant, and I know I’m not brilliant. You believe you are brilliant enough to tell me that I’m wrong about everything I say. It’s hard to be wrong when stating an opinion. Your opinions and my opinions are different. I don’t think that I can tell you that your opinions are wrong. I may tell you that your “facts” are wrong if they are stated as fact and not backed up with proof.

            2. “(I voted Republican until 2020) “

              Doesn’t this make Laurie sound like an awful joke?

        4. ” but “the left” are also Americans whom I believe also want a united America.”

          Laurie, are you advocating everyone who acts in an apparently unlawful manner be shot dead? George Floyd was acting illegally and had a record. Are you saying that Chauvin should be applauded?

          1. No, I think you know I am not advocating that. I do know that many times, when a police officer says “stop” and the person they are telling to stop keeps coming, that person is shot. George Floyd was restrained and handcuffed when he was killed. An officer who was attempting to protect those who were legally inside the Capitol, yelled “stop” and Ashli Babbitt who had to be aware that she was committing a crime, kept coming, I do not believe the officer was out of line to shoot his weapon. He had no way of knowing what she was doing other than that she was trying to breach the Capitol which he had sworn to protect.

            1. ” George Floyd was restrained and handcuffed when he was killed.”

              When he died. He was polluted with drugs and had congestive heart failure among other things. Some wish to believe that the knee was the cause. It was not but it wasn’t helpful.

              “I do not believe the officer was out of line to shoot his weapon. “

              Ashli was unarmed with hands and feet exposed because of all the glass in the window.. There was very significant distance between her and the policeman who shot her. Other police were in the room as well and didn’t shoot. There was no one around other than police. This was a bad shooting and other shootings of lesser nature would have led to dismissal or reprimand. If you believe it was OK to shoot Ashli, then you are advocating more aggressive action by the police with a lot more policemen killing suspects.

              They have some audio of her elsewhere trying to calm the crowd down. I believe she was an MP.

              1. None of that matters about his drug use. There was still no reason for the police officer to continue to keep his knee on him. He was under control. Yes, there is disagreement about how much the drugs in his system contributed to his death, but the police officer had no reason to exert force on him while he was handcuffed and prone on the ground. A jury ruled that the officer was at fault. I believe the officer has appealed the verdict, and he may be get a new trial and eventually be found not guilty. Until then, he has been proven guilty.

                The police officer at the Capitol wasn’t trying to protect himself. He was trying to protect those who were legally inside the Capitol, so it doesn’t matter how far away she was. He shot her to keep her from illegally entering the Capitol. He had no idea whether she had a gun, a bomb, or any other weapon somewhere on her person.

                When George Floyd died, he was restrained and there was no chance that he could harm the police officer or anyone else. When Ashli died, she was doing something illegal and the officer who shot her did not know if she had a weapon. When he shot Ashli, we don’t know what other officers wee doing or seeing. We do know that many of them were busy defending themselves, attempting to hold back the demonstrators, or trying to get the V-P and members of the Senate and Congress to safety.

                1. “None of that matters about his drug use.”

                  Aside from the fact he most likely died from the drugs, congestive heart failure and other elements, the drugs don’t matter.

                  I won’t debate the knee, except for the fact it wasn’t the cause of death. In case you are unaware, it isn’t uncommon for drugged up people to suddenly awaken and sometimes they kill other people or the cop. But who cares about the cop or other people. We need to care more about a career criminal with a history of violence that just committed a felony or two. Then we should all riot so that people lose their jobs, homes and lives. That makes sense, right? Let’s concentrate on Chauvin while every weekend a few kids are killed in Chicago. That seems to meet the needs of the left.

                  “He was trying to protect those who were legally inside the Capitol,”

                  Tell us who else was in the room where the unarmed 110 pound unarmed Ashley Babbit was entering with her arms and legs open, carefully navigating the broken glass. It was like shooting a duck standing still 10 feet away by a sniper.

                  1. Sorry, I didn’t know you had examined the body of George Floyd and made a professional decision on his cause of death. The man was handcuffed. I doubt that he could have done much harm to the officer or anyone around them. And If the officer had not stayed on top of him, he would not have been charged or convicted of murder. He had no reason to stay there.

                    The Capitol Police Officer was not attempting to protect anyone else who was in that room. In his shoes, I would have assumed she didn’t plan to climb in the window to turn around and climb back out. There were people yelling about who they wanted to kill. In the officer’s shoes, I would have assumed that she was going to try to get to the members of Congress and Senate and their staffs. They are who the officers had sworn to protect.

                    1. “Sorry, I didn’t know you had examined the body of George Floyd and made a professional decision on his cause of death.”

                      You are snarky. I read the INITIAL autopsy report. DID YOU? What we hear is political and revisions of the autopsy report are political. You are political and snarky to boot. You have proven yourself uninformed without any desire to see for yourself where the truth lies.

                      “Sorry, I didn’t know you had examined the body of George Floyd and made a professional decision on his cause of death.”

                      I think there were three armed police officers in the room. Do you think they could have waited till she got through the glass. We watch police officers being told to hold fire even when the perp has a gun that is pointed. Suddenly, you wish to reverse that because you have a fantasy.

                      This was one of the most blatant shootings that disregarded police procedure that I have heard about. Under any other circumstance he may have been tried and later occupied the same jail cell as Chauvin.

                    2. Laurie, I could deal with the snark if you would start responding to those things I mention rather than create new issues or rewrite old ones.

                    3. It appears you have asked me questions but disabled the ability for a response to those questions, so I’ll try to answer them here. You say that I’ve suddenly reversed my opinion about police officers not firing on someone who is approaching with a gun. I don’t think I’ve stated an opinion on that. However, I will tell you that if someone is approaching with a gun pointed at the officer, I believe the police officer has a right to fire his weapon at that person.

                      “You are political and snarky to boot.” You have me laughing again. No wonder you disabled replies, when the questions you are asking are to a “political and snarky” commenter. Then you leave another comment: “Laurie, I could deal with the snark if you would start responding to those things I mention rather than create new issues or rewrite old ones”, but since there is no reply button, I assume you have disabled my opportunity to reply. However, as far as I’m concerned, I have been replying and not creating new issues or rewriting old ones.

                      Another of your comments asking a question without a reply button:
                      ““Who wants to restrict freedom of speech?”
                      Listen to our President and your fellow leftists.”
                      I’ve been listening, and I won’t tell you again why I believe the republican party wants to restrict freedom of speech.

                      “Who wants to control public property? I don’t know.”
                      You don’t know? You seem to know about all sorts of things. Do you know what private property is? Do you know what the Nazi’s did with private property? The Fascists? The communists?”

                      Talk about snarky! Yes, I know what the Nazi’s did with private property. What I don’t know is what you’re saying this administration is doing with private property. I do know that former President Trump seized private lands for the wall, against the wishes of some land owners.

                      You also asked: “Did you ever hear Obama saying, “ you didn’t build that”? Did you hear the left when Musk made his bid for Twitter?”
                      Yes, I heard Obama say, “you didn’t build that”. The entire quote is: ” “Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” He said that business didn’t build the roads or bridges. I believe that to be a fact. Sorry, I do agree with democrats that if Musk allows anything to be posted on Twitter with no regulating, he will be contributing to and advancing the spread of disinformation and hate speech. Again, disinformation is that which cannot be proven. I believe it is dangerous to spread it when it affects the health, welfare, and mental stability of Americans. I believe hate speech has led to hate-driven crime and to suicides by those who are the subject of hate speech. I don’t think hate speech should have a place in America. We all have freedom of speech, but when our speech purposefully negatively effects other Americans, I don’t see a need for it to be published, including statements made as fact without proof.

                      You also asked: What did Trump do to control the press? Nothing. Do you know who Jeff Bezos is? Do you know who owns the Washington Post? ” I’m not saying Trump controlled the press. He didn’t have to. He convinced his followers that if they said something against him or contradicted his opinions, they were fake news. That’s why so many of his supporters use the phrases “you need to stop watch CNN, etc. and maybe you’ll learn the truth”.

                      Your final insult in that comment: “It is pointless to discuss these things with you unless you can discuss instead of providing leftist talking points that are meaningless.” I thought we were discussing and I know I wasn’t providing talking points from either side. I was providing my opinions and a few facts that have been proven.

                    4. “It appears you have asked me questions but disabled the ability for a response to those questions” From Laurie

                      Since you are not linked to any singular response and there is no name attached (I’m having computer problems making searching difficult), and since you referred to snark, I will assume you are responding to me.

                      How can I disable the response button? Immediately your thought is someone is out to get you. The truth is quite different. There are only so many replies WordPress provides. If one responds through email one can press the reply button there. No one is out to get you.

                      “You are political and snarky to boot.” You have me laughing again. No wonder you disabled replies, when the questions you are asking are to a “political and snarky” commenter.”

                      Another unfounded conclusion, attacking someone who had nothing to do with your lack of a response button. Do you see how things work? You talked about how we should all join together, but then you produced snark, which I discussed in an earlier response so that we could dispose of that problem. But here it is again. Now you are accusing me of disabling the reply button which isn’t possible. Why do you make such assumptions in the first place? That is how the left reacts to circumstances. They always find the need to blame someone, fragment society, and destroy the individual.

                      “You say that I’ve suddenly reversed my opinion about police officers not firing on someone who is approaching with a gun.”

                      I don’t believe you have correctly characterized that statement. If you think you have, pull it up and we can discuss it. My point was that leftists attack policemen for shooting a perp who is an immediate threat, but have no objection when no immediate threat existed. Why? Political hypocrisy.

                      “He didn’t have to. He convinced his followers that if they said something against him or contradicted his opinions, they were fake news. ”

                      Hold on. Do you believe the Russia hoax and Steele Dossier were real after all this time and with so much evidence? If so let’s argue the facts of those two interlinked issues. You are upset because people called false news fake news. Why is that?

                      Maybe you listen too much to pundits and don’t read what actually occurred.

                      “you need to stop watch CNN, etc. and maybe you’ll learn the truth”.

                      Maybe you should. CNN reported the Russia Hoax and Steele Dossier incorrectly. If you can defend CNN do so, but stop creating things out of thin air.

                      Your final insult in that comment: “It is pointless to discuss these things with you unless you can discuss instead of providing leftist talking points that are meaningless.”

                      That is what you were doing. You were making the same leftist talking points without providing content and many of them, as I have subsequently pointed out, were wrong.

                      By the way, that was in response to your statement,

                      “Who wants to restrict freedom of speech? As I already said, republicans if you don’t agree with them. I’m not aware of proof of democrats trying to restrict freedom of speech.”

                      Did you forget about the “Disinformation Governance Board” What do you think that board is supposed to do?

                      Try to do better.

                    5. Ooops! I spoke too soon when I complimented you for trying to have a reasonable conversation. Quote from my comment: “It appears you have asked me questions but disabled the ability for a response to those questions.”
                      Quote from your comment: “Another unfounded conclusion, attacking someone who had nothing to do with your lack of a response button”.

                      Are you honestly telling me that you believe I attacked you when I said “it appears that you have disabled the ability for a response”? I did not conclude that you had done that. I said, it appeared that you had, and you think what I said was an attack! Then you accuse me of being snarky again. “It appears” does not denote an accusation or an assumption. I have never commented on this blog, and I have no idea what can or can’t be done. I did not blame someone, fragment society, or destroy an individual, and I did not make an assumption.

                      You asked me to give you the quote from your comment regarding “suddenly reversed my opinion”: “I think there were three armed police officers in the room. Do you think they could have waited till she got through the glass. We watch police officers being told to hold fire even when the perp has a gun that is pointed. Suddenly, you wish to reverse this because you have a fantasy.”

                      Is your question, “Do you believe the Russian hoax and Steele Dosier were real” in response to my saying that Trump convinced his followers that if the media said something against him or disagreed with him, they were fake news”? I’m not getting the connection. What I heard and have heard about those two things were not fake news. The reports I heard were based on what was known at the time. That is not fake news. After the Steele Dossier was proven false. I didn’t see media saying that it was true. As far as the Russian hoax, I assume you’re talking about the investigation into Trump collusion with the Russians to rig the election. I’ll say the same as the Steele Dossier. They reported what they knew to be true at the time. When the Muller Report was released, I didn’t see reports about the collusion. Before there was proof about these matters, I never saw any reporter say that Trump colluded with Russia. The reports I saw where things like, “Trump has been accused of collusion by some, and there will be an investigation”. That is not fake news. Media should be able to report events that are happening, and I believe that’s what they did.

                      In order to defend CNN, I’d have to know exactly what reports they aired that were created out of thin air.

                      As I’ve previously stated, I do not believe that disinformation (statements without proof) should be stated as fact, especially if those stated facts could be harmful to other Americans. I’m not sure, and Biden seems to agree, that we can have a Board to regulate disinformation. I’ve spent days trying to convince you of my opinion of disinformation and haven’t made any progress, so I’m sure a DB would lead to more disinformation when we are told that the DB is political and that they are accusing the right’s facts of being disinformation.

                      Please don’t tell me to try to do better. I am doing the best I can!

                    6. “Ooops! I spoke too soon when I complimented you for trying to have a reasonable conversation.”

                      What are you talking about? You accused everyone, including me, of removing the reply button. Do you believe only the right has to be polite, and you can make unfounded accusations when the real problem was your ignorance of how WordPress functions? That is more than you can expect another to endure.

                      ” I said, it appeared that you had”

                      Are you now intent on playing word games? How about, instead of your attack, if you asked, what happened to the response button? I have tried to be nice to you, but you don’t reply in kind. You also don’t deal with the questions I raise while I deal with yours.

                      “I’m not getting the connection.”

                      Maybe you could have done a better job expressing yourself. What is wrong with Trump using the words, fake news when the news was fake? What is wrong with his followers agreeing with him when what he says is true? Let’s hear some facts from you.

                      “The reports I heard were based on what was known at the time.”

                      The Steele Dossier was fake news. It was created by the Clinton campaign along with the help (knowingly or not knowingly) of the FBI. You believed it. I didn’t. Don’t blame me for being right. Blame yourself for being wrong. It was fake news from the start, and it was people, like you, who permitted the Clintons and the media to get away with it for so long.

                      You don’t know how to determine the various levels of credibility for things that you read or hear. Biden likely lost the election if the illegal ballots weren’t counted. That is my opinion based on the facts available. You are not looking for truth. Instead, you are looking for confirmation of the fantasies you wish to believe. The Steele Dossier even sounded like a fantasy.

                      “Trump has been accused of collusion by some, and there will be an investigation”. That is not fake news. ”

                      When the news is created by the opposition and posted by the media it is fake news. Your logic is faulty.

                      As I’ve previously stated, I do not believe that disinformation (statements without proof) should be stated as fact,”

                      Good. You reject most of the policy statements of fact by Biden. That is a step in the right direction.

                      “especially if those stated facts could be harmful to other Americans.”

                      But you have already demonstrated you don’t know what is harmful to Americans. Your comments indicate you don’t understand the important issues under discussion. Do you know anything about economics, Covid, masks or the other things talked about recently?

                      “Please don’t tell me to try to do better. I am doing the best I can!”

                      Then I feel sorry for you. There are ways to change that, but I don’t think you are interested.

                    7. While you are looking for proof before you see a documentary that might be convincing this just popped into my mail. Things of this nature are popping in quite frequently.

                      “New election integrity fears: Georgia county ballot machines off by thousands when hand counted”

                      This one has to do with the Democrat primary, but we have seen other information of similar nature that involves tens of thousands of ballots in different localities.

            2. “I do know that many times, when a police officer says “stop” and the person they are telling to stop keeps coming, that person is shot.”
              ***********************************
              Happens about as much as the Sun circles the Earth. Such a liar!

              1. Your hatred and immaturity are showing. You’re doing a good job of proving that that those people are correct when they say they can’t have a discussion with those on the right, because they are immature and hateful,

      1. Apparently, despite your claim that “we are stronger as a nation, as one united people, who can celebrate their common values as well as their differences,” you aren’t willing to have a serious, good-faith discussion with someone who has different views about Babbitt’s death than you do. That’s too bad. If you ever change your mind, let me know.

  4. Why would they bring the case in DC if they weren’t trying to throw it to begin with?

    I’m disgusted every day upon waking up. Everything is a goddamn mess and these disgusting, lying Democrats will get away with it all.

        1. Did the prosecutors ask for a change of venue? Why call someone a hypocrite because you think they aren’t aware of something?

          In my opinion, is not a fair comparison to compare trials presided over by different judges. judges are not all the same. Some are more lenient toward all parties than others. If a judge does not follow law, the case can be appealed to other courts and if it is found the law wasn’t followed, the verdict is set aside. I believe Flynn did appeal but was unsuccessful. Flynn was accused of lying and he admitted he lied. Doesn’t seem to me he had much of a case.

          1. RE:”””In my opinion, is not a fair comparison to compare trials presided over by different judges.””” Reporting regarding the jury’s verdict tells that, in part, it was based on their judgement that the prosecution did no prove all the elements of the charge. That notwithstanding, the testimony brought to light more of what the electorate needed to know of creation and setting into motion of the HRC gambit.. A jury in the Court of Public Opinion can come to a far more reaching verdict than that enabled through a limited charge from the bench. We have yet to learn how high they will hang Democrat Party and its candidates from the Election Day scaffold.

            1. The jury acquitted based on what they heard during the trial, Anything that was learned by the by the public is not factual. We didn’t witness everything the jury heard and saw, so we can’t pick and choose what is true about what we may have read or heard. If the case is appealed, what we saw or heard may be proven factual. Until then, belief in the truth of what we read or heard is opinion.

      1. The prosecution could’ve requested a change of venue because of the political realities of this case. And, let’s face it – regardless of what anyone, including the judge, says – this is a political case.

        I believe the judge even offered to recuse himself because of the potential conflict of his wife representing former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, but Durham declined. Further evidence that they are trying to throw the case.

  5. “Clinton’s team made it all up, Durham found out easily, and Clinton’s team admit it now. Yet, no one seems curious as to how Mueller/Weissmann could spend two years, $40 million, 2,800 subpoenas, use 40 agents, 19 DOJ lawyers, 500 witnesses and not figure that out.” ~thelastrefuge2

    1. It wasn’t in his purview because he was the cover-up guy.

      Mueller, FBI, DOJ, CIA, mainstream media, all colluded with Hillary Clinton to spread elaborate lies, mis and disinformation in order to take down a duly elected president.

      The lack of reporting in the MSM about the Sussman trial, or Mook’s admission, and what it all means, is all you need to know.

      Everything they told you was a lie.

      It was an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by Hillary Clinton, to subvert an election.

      Remember this when Pelosi, Schumer and their media allies spread more lies and disinformation about J6.

      1. RE:”” Yet, no one seems curious as to how Mueller/Weissmann could spend two years, ………” Weissman’s ethical and moral turpiturde is all one has to know. That’s been made clear tor years. That this lot is deemed worthy of an academic appointment to the faculty a prominent law school speaks clearly to the conversations currently underway in these pages.https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/05/explosive-new-documents-reveal-andrew-weissmanns-misconduct-enron-case/

      2. “Mueller, FBI, DOJ, CIA, mainstream media, all colluded with Hillary Clinton to spread elaborate lies, mis and disinformation in order to take down a duly elected president.”

        The Democrats got away with it, so in 2020, they pushed the envelope further and committed fraud by submitting illegal ballots. It is proved in the documentary 2000 Mules which everyone should see. They can watch their local ballot trafficker dumping ballots into the ballot boxes while wearing gloves to hide their fingerprints. One can watch the mules go back and forth from one Democrat NGO to many ballot boxes where some are even across state lines. We convict criminals based on the type of evidence 2000 mules used, so why don’t we convict the Democrats involved. Biden is President because America permitted a fraudulent election.

        See 2000 Mules and tell everyone else to see it as well. We should be furious over this. This type of thing is what causes democracies to fall. America depends on good citizens to stop the illegalities we have seen from the left and see to it the Democrat Party returns to the roots of JFK.

        1. 2000 Mules is a video, not proof. If someone had proof, why wouldn’t they take it to the authorities instead of producing a money-making film? As we all know, videos can be manipulated. Until valid proof is presented, it is disinformation to state your opinion of a video as fact. Anyone can state their opinion, but when we begin stating an opinion as if it’s fact, we are spreading disinformation.

          Until 2020, I voted republican, but when our president and republican representatives began making statements as if they were facts without any proof to back them up, the republican party left me. There has been no proof that the election was fraudulent. In fact, there has been proof that it was not fraudulent. Numerous court cases, recounts, and audits have proven the election was not stolen. If it turns out that something in 2000 Mules is validated by proof that what is said in the video and what is shown in the video is factual, we can state that there was fraud.

          Our republican president lied to us on numerous occasions. He began his lies in his first campaign when he said “it’s us against them” and “if I lose the election, it will be due to cheating” (yes, he started that lie in 2015). He continues those lies even now. We are one America. We were not, and should not, be against each other. Without telling any government body or the public, he stole money from the defense budget to build a wall. A court has ruled he couldn’t do that. He lied to us about a pandemic. It is my opinion that he then lied again when he admitted that he lied about it but only to keep the public from panicking. If he truly believed he has to protect us from panicking by lying while people died because they believed his lies, I don’t think he should have been president. He thought Americans were stupid enough to believe him when he altered a hurricane map and then lied that it was what the National Weather Bureau showed him. The National Weather Bureau has denied showing a map with an obvious adjustment made with a black marker. He lied when he called any news he disagreed with fake news. He showed no proof that any of it was fake. He simply didn’t like what they had to say. Our Republican representatives have perpetuated these lies. Immediately after 1/9, some of them said that it was a horrendous event. Now, they say that it was a normal day at the Capitol. One, who helped police guard the door of the chamber against those trying to break through, has said that they had concerns about the election, and therefore shouldn’t be charged with a crime. They either lied immediately after or they are lying now. Many of them have supported the lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent, in spite of courts that have found no evidence of widespread fraud. They have called republicans who still stand up for all Americans rinos and censored and censured them. They have immaturely said that they will not let anything pass that is presented by this administration and followed the former president’s lead in immaturely pledging revenge against those who disagree with them.

          It is my opinion that all of the above, along with the 1/9 invasion of the Capitol are what cause democracies to fall. Unless and until the republican party returns to honest and moral governing, I cannot support them.

          1. Righto. You want a return to “honest and moral governing” …so you will vote for Democrats.

            Act Blue isn’t paying you enough.

            1. I guess, instead of the word “honest”, I should have said a government that doesn’t make statements without proof, which, in my opinion, a lie. I hear a lot of politicians make ridiculous statements, but they state them as opinions, not fact.

              1. Yeah and not one “official” from Biden’s admin or Clinton’s world or Obama’s admin or Congress has ever gone on TV and lied like a mutha, have they? Wake up and smell the bullsh*t already.

                1. There is no need to get ugly unless you have a chip on your shoulder. Yes, officials lie. A lot of times, they are forced to provide proof or admit that they lied. My opinion is that you need to wake up and your opinion is that I need to wake up. Those are opinions, which each of us is entitled to.

          2. A point to make about your need for “moral governing” but apparently only from Republicans:
            We’ve seen the absolutely harmful “mistakes” and disasters coming out of the Biden administration in only a year and a half. From Afghanistan to Mayorkas to Buttigeg to Becerra to Yellen to Fauci, FDA, CDC, NIH, etc….has one senior official resigned? You know, done the honorable, professional, morally right thing, which is to resign?

            Nope.

            1. I agree that the pullout from Afghanistan was a disaster, but I see no reason for any senior official to resign, and I don’t know why they would have any moral need to resign.

              1. Don’t you realize Incompetence is a reason for resignation or being fired? Do you expect to be paid for sitting on your hands and doing nothing?

          3. “2000 Mules is a video”

            You obviously haven’t seen the documentary. What is recorded in the numbers, the tracking, the videos and other things come from sources outside of the documentary. The facts are in your face on the video. When they show videos of Mules do you believe they used actors. They were videos that were from government. Most videos in these states were illegally disposed of, so they are not available, but those that are available are undeniable proof. Do you think the tracking that is used by our CIA, FBI and police departments is not proof? The tracking information is from third sources and it shows what happened.

            “2000 Mules is a video, not proof.”

            Tell me what in particular is not proof. You can’t do that with the tracking or the videos. This is not a movie. It is mostly a release of third party data that is compiled from trillions of bits of information. The question is how many are willing to lose their jobs by using this information to show the truth.

            Please don’t tell me how you voted Republican. I like neither party and only vote against Democrats because at this time in history the Republicans are the lesser of two evils. If you want to throw McConnell in jail. Do so. I think he is scum.

            1. “Do you think the tracking that is used by our CIA, FBI and police departments is not proof? The tracking information is from third sources and it shows what happened.”

              Are you saying that the CIA, FBI, and police departments were cited in the video as tracking this information? Are you saying that all of those agencies have information that the election was fraudulent and are not acting on it? If instead, you are saying that the producer of the video used the same tracking methods as these agencies, it still proves nothing. I have no idea whether or not this producer knows how to use those methods or whether or not he manipulated the results of tracking by those methods. If I watched the video, I still wouldn’t know unless there is some verification by the CIA, FBI, and police that they did the tracking and the video is the result of their tracking. But if those agencies were willing to publicly admit that without taking any action against criminals, I’d think a lot of heads would roll.

              1. “Are you saying that the CIA, FBI, and police departments were cited in the video as tracking this information?”

                No, but they use the same information from the same people. See the documentary 2000 Mules. Until you see it you should refrain on making comments. The comments don’t help your image.

                1. I’m not at all worried about my image. I think that was probably ruined in this group the first time I made a comment. To ask questions about the documentary is not making a comment.

                  1. Asking questions is great. Drawing conclusions based on lack of knowledge isn’t.

                    I gave you a free pass to see 2000 Mules earlier. Anyone else can use that Http as well. It may be free even with a slight alteration of the address. https://odysee.com/2000mules:c I think elsewhere there might be commercials.

                    1. My remark about asking questions was in response to your comment that I should refrain from commenting on it. The only comments I have made have been that it is my belief that if it proved something, the proof would have been seen by authorities and charges would have been filed. If that is in the process, I’ll wait to see the charges and the results of those charges.

                    2. My now repaired Internet dumped some new news. The same type of news comes in on a regular basis, but you are unaware of that type of news. It doesn’t fit your narrative.
                      —-
                      https://www.theepochtimes.com/wisconsin-voters-sue-5-cities-over-unlawful-unmanned-ballot-drop-boxes-in-elections_4492347.html

                      “Wisconsin Voters Sue 5 Cities Over Unlawful Unmanned Ballot Drop Boxes in Elections

                      Voters in Wisconsin’s five largest cities are suing over the use of illegal unmanned absentee ballot drop boxes in elections. …election law forbids the use of unmanned absentee ballot drop boxes for voting”

                      That means those ballots are invalid.

                      https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/documents-show-maricopa-county-counted-19000-late-invalid-ballots-2020?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

                      Maricopa County counted 19,000 late, invalid ballots in 2020 election, newly disgorged records show

                      In Arizona, votes must be received by the county by 7 p.m. on Election Day.

                      Newly uncovered records reportedly show over 19,000 ballots in Arizona’s Maricopa County in the 2020 elections were counted despite having been received after the deadline to be considered. “

                      It seems like a lot of people broke the law. Of course that the documentary, not video, has video and tracking of illegality doesn’t mean anything to you because you already know the truth, or you think you know. You are wrong. There are so many ballots in question that almost certainly Biden lost the election if the illegal ballots were removed.

                    3. RE:”There are so many ballots in question that almost certainly Biden lost the election if the illegal ballots were removed…..” The 2020 vote is rife with issues of ballot irregularities. It is known that state laws were changed to ‘accommodate’ the vote due to the unusual circumstances created by the pandemic. This is now current election procedure in Florida. https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_Florida

                    4. Avenatti is the man you likely cheered when he bashed Trump. He was so great Dems were thinking about running him for President. He was an honest man according to your type of logic. It wasn’t until his conviction that suddenly you might have had second thoughts.

                      “https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/michael-avenatti-sentenced-four-years-prison-crimes-against-former-client-stormy?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

                      Attorney Michael Avenatti sentenced to four years in prison for swindling client Stormy Daniels

                      Avenatti was for a time an anti-Trump cable news fixture during the former president’s administration.

                      Attorney Michael Avenatti was sentenced Thursday to four years in prison for defrauding ex-porn star Stormy Daniels, a former client whose legal wrangling with then-President Trump briefly made Avenatti a cable news celebrity for bashing Trump.”

                    5. Should we trust the Capitol Police?

                      https://justthenews.com/government/congress/exclusive-internal-probe-faults-capitol-police-photographing-congressmans?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

                      Exclusive: Internal probe faults Capitol Police for photographing congressman’s private work …

                      An internal investigation has confirmed Capitol Police entered Texas Republican Rep. Troy Nehls’ office and photographed a whiteboard containing his sensitive legislative plans, concluding the officer who took the picture exercised “questionable judgment” and the department lacked policies and training to avoid an unnecessary intrusion on lawmakers’ constitutionally protected work.

                      “I personally believe that Nancy Pelosi has weaponized the U.S. Capitol Police as her own investigations unit,” Nehls said in an interview with the “Just the News, Not Noise” television show. “She goes after anybody that has dissenting point of views. I obviously have been a very vocal critic of the January 6th committee and the events of January 6.”

          4. ““it’s us against them” and “if I lose the election, it will be due to cheating” “

            Neither are lies.

            “it’s us against them”

            That is a true statement. It is Democrats against Republicans. That is the Party system, or did you not know that?

            However, what we have seen since then lis lying and cheating by Democrats using the FBI, CIA , IRS, Committees acting in concert to defeat another candidate. Then we have the Russia hoax and Ukraine Hoax. Then there is the laptop and many other things that point to Biden doing things that he shouldn’t have done. Then of course we have the significant lies that Biden makes on almost a daily basis either due to lying which he has been known for for decades or senility. Pick your poison.

            “if I lose the election, it will be due to cheating”

            The problem for you is it turned out he was right. You haven’t seen 2000 Mules yet you say it is only a movie. What else don’t you know? A lot based on your present rhetoric.

            1. We are all Americans and though we may vote for different parties it is my belief that we should be working together for a better America for everyone. Now, the elected republicans have refused to work with the elected democrats, and as evidenced by this thread, we all have chips on our shoulders and feel that “the other side” is wrong. As I previously said, I believe this is the way that authoritarianism begins – with a leader uniting one group against another.

              So before, the election that Trump won, he knew he wouldn’t lose unless there was cheating, even though all the polls showed Hillary winning?

              The problem for me is that either I wasn’t aware that we are all supposed to be fighting each other, or we’re all fighting because former President Trump told us to, and I don’t think we should be. I cannot bend to believe what hasn’t been proven, and you cannot bend to believe only what has been proven.

              1. Talk is cheap. If you believe in unity then you make sure the people that surround you aren’t cheats and liars. You don’t draw conclusions without proof and then say there isn’t enough proof to change an opinion based on fraud.

                “Now, the elected republicans have refused to work with the elected democrats, “

                How can you expect anyone to be able to deal with a mind as closed as yours. Look who is not dealing with whom. You didn’t respond to any of the proof provided and then you attacked people for things beyond their control.

                The personality type you deplore is your own.

                “So before, the election that Trump won, he knew he wouldn’t lose unless there was cheating, even though all the polls showed Hillary winning?”

                Trump was correct, and the proof is now coming in, but many like yourself don’t like to look at it. That is why we have such a split in this country.

                If you are still here I suggest you compare the bloody French Revolution to the American Revolution. You are more of a Jacobin type.

          5. “We are one America.”

            We should be one America, but the Democrats have tried to break us into little parts, a Stalin tactic, by sex, race, class, etc.

            I wonder if you believe in MLK’s character over color or do you believe like many Democrats that color is to be used to fracture American society.

            1. I believe that democrats have attempt to unite all of us — all sexes, races, classes, etc. — and republicans believe, as you said, that trying to unite will fracture American society.

              1. “I believe that democrats have attempt to unite all of us — all sexes, races, classes, etc. — and republicans believe, as you said, that trying to unite will fracture American society”

                Laurie, are you out of your freaking mind, or just high on quaaludes? WTF?

                1. I’m not sure if you are asking of I’m out of my mind because I believe the democrats are trying to unite us, or because I believe the democrats shouldn’t try to unite us all.

                  If you think I’m wrong in my belief that democrats are trying to unite us, then that is your opinion and we differ on those opinions.

                  If you think the democrats are wrong to try to unite all of us, that is your opinion, and I disagree.

                  1. RE: ““I believe that democrats have attempt to unite all of us …….Never has ‘ex uno multis’ been more relevant to the state of the union than in the present day. Tribalism prevails, egged on and re-enforced by govt socio-political and economic engineering such that a U.S. Senator is known to have donned the cloak of a Native American to gain personal advantage. In the streets, a crime wave abounds, abetted by ‘social do-goodiks’,, advocates who have neutered law enforcement, and installed a revolving door in the justice system which victimizes the citizenry. The pied piper power brokers play a tune intended to capitalize on our differences, to divide us because they understand that in unity there is strength, and those who follow them are their lawful prey.

              2. Laurie:

                LOL. They thrive precisely on the opposite. They don’t accomodate; they bully. They don’t protest; they riot. Are you guys not too busy at Correct The Record? You’re pretty transparent as a Dim talking point ATM.

              3. If you believe that then you believe what the KKK believed. They believed race was more important than character.

          6. ” he stole money from the defense budget to build a wall.”

            He found money in the defense department that could be used to build the wall. There is nothing illegal in that unless you don’t believe in secure American borders.

            Do you believe America has sovereignty over its borders or not?

            1. The court said that it wasn’t legal. It has nothing to do with my beliefs about the wall. The president of the United States is not authorized to use any government money without authorization from Congress. It’s part of the checks and balances we have in place.

              1. In the end I think much of the money was legally used to build the wall.

                Congress gave authorization for defense. Defense of our borders is what the military is supposed to be doing. Do you disagree?

                1. You disagree with the court’s ruling that he couldn’t take the money and use it for the wall? Are you telling me that you have enough information to decide that the court is wrong in saying that the president has no right to spend money without approval from Congress?

                  1. I didn’t say that. I said in the end “I think much of the money was legally used to build the wall.”

                    Do you want open borders permitting illegal alien entry which can include terrorists? How about drugs like Fentanyl that have killed over 100,000 in one year? How about human trafficking and slavery? Those are the things Trump tried to prevent from entering the country. I know, no one could possibly favor ILLEGAL crossing of the border, drugs or human trafficking, but you are making others believe you support those things. I don’t believe it. I’ll let you explain to the others why you don’t favor illegal aliens, drugs and human slavery crossing the border.

                    1. SM: I assume you realize that “Laurie” is a sock puppet for “Anon.”

                      Here’s an element of its current con: Extensive knowledge about a range of topics (from the pandemic to Afghanistan) — but feigns ignorance about obvious points. And it adopts a folksy style to seduce the unwary.

                    2. “SM: I assume you realize that “Laurie” is a sock puppet for “Anon.””

                      Thank you Sam. That idea hit me about the third post. The question is, which Anonymous? Originally I thought it might be Anonymous the Stupid because he has spoofed before under different aliases. He is also known to be spiteful involved with having posts of others deleted. It could be ATS, but I don’t think so. At one point I thought she wrote like Svelaz but these are all wild guesses.

                      In this case, it could be anyone of numerous people including one from the past. It has a name. It acts stupid and it will likely disappear relatively rapidly.

                      However, those that read Laurie’s responses and aren’t that knowledgeable will see that she is a loon providing nothing more than talking points. That is a good thing for the truth is getting out in an indirect fashion.

                      I always give people the benefit of the doubt like I originally did with Anonymous the Stupid. After a while the courteous exchanges disintegrate.

                    3. I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt, I just start insulting them because I know what their game is all about – especially this “Laurie” entity.

                      They’ll gaslight and gaslight and pretend to not know or “be aware” of the obvious.

                      Don’t bother with rational, point-by-point argument. It’s a waste of time, and that’s their objective – to waste your time and keep things at the level of circular arguments about fundamental points to deflect the truth.

                    4. Thanks KJ. You are probably right, but I am interested in how people think. I have plenty of time, but what I am seeing is that the leftists remaining on this blog don’t think. Most of the responses are talking points, copy and paste.

                    5. Thanks for all of the laughs. I’m a troll, unintelligent, an entity, a pretender, a joke, and I don’t think. I feel like I’m back in middle school. I was honest about my opinions. I did vote republican until 2020. I was trying to understand how people can believe without proof. Call me what you want and think what you want. I don’t care, but I was sincere.

                    6. “Thanks for all of the laughs. I’m a troll, unintelligent, an entity, a pretender, a joke, and I don’t think. I feel like I’m back in middle school. I was honest about my opinions. I did vote republican until 2020. I was trying to understand how people can believe without proof. Call me what you want and think what you want. I don’t care, but I was sincere.“

                      You came here under an alias in order to fight and create what you say you don’t want. Thanks for providing the entertainment and to the insight of another person who is unable to think. What I don’t understand is how people like you come so unprepared with talking points and have not the slightest idea what is going on. That is your choice, but you couldn’t even stand up erect.

                      No problem. You will be gone soon or adopt another alias. Will you learn anything? No.You wish to remain ignorant.

                      SM

                    7. My name is Laurie. I’ve never used an alias. I don’t feel a need to. You’re right. I’ll be gone soon. You talk about me not wanting to learn – those who disagree with you and others on this thread are told they are stupid, etc. That’s what I call not wanting to learn. All of you talk about freedom of speech. I did not call any of you hateful names when I read your comments. I believe that makes me more on the side of freedom of speech than you are. I believe I have politely read and responded to the comments on this blog. I began my comments in an attempt to understand why so many Americans believe and state their beliefs as fact without having proof. I’m obviously not going to learn that from the Americans commenting on this blog. My freedom of speech is apparently not respected here, so, yes, I’m gone.

                    8. I was polite and didn’t call you stupid until you attacked and were insulting. You wanted a fight and you got it. You thought a list of talking points would help you through. It didn’t. When the alternate opinion was provided with detailed explanation you became frustrated and like most leftists you ran away.

                      ” I did not call any of you hateful names when I read your comments. “

                      You attacked and you were insulting.

                      “I believe that makes me more on the side of freedom of speech than you are. “

                      No one stopped you from talking. Take note of Biden’s attempt at a disinformation bureau. You ran away from that discussion as well.

                      “I believe I have politely read and responded to the comments on this blog. “

                      You have not and I for one was polite until you showed your true colors. Not that you are a leftist, rather you are innately rude.

                      ” Americans believe and state their beliefs as fact without having proof.”

                      You accepted that which was later proven false and ran away from very solid evidence. You don’t learn from your mistakes.

                      ‘ My freedom of speech is apparently not respected here, so, yes, I’m gone.”

                      Goodbye. Come back when you want discussion and skip the indoctrination. Come back with more than talking points you cannot defend.

                    9. Wait! I missed some laughs. I act stupid, I’m a sock puppet, feign knowledge, I’m stupid, and a loon, I use a folksy style, and my courteous exchanges will disintegrate rapidly and I will disappear rapidly. We may have regressed to grade-school level. I believe the disintegration of courteous exchanges began with comments to me, not from me. I guess I am kind of folksy, but I’m not pretending. If my admissions that I wasn’t aware of something sounded like I was acting stupid, let it be known that I wasn’t acting. I think what all of you fail to understand and what I’ve been trying to say is that I require proof to believe. When I say I’m unaware of something, that may know that it has been alleged, but I also believe that it hasn’t been proven. You are right that I am attempting to disappear. I don’t know that the disappearance has been so rapid, though. I’ve communicated quite a bit on here before deciding that I didn’t have the ability to get my point across.

                    10. “Wait! I missed some laughs. I act stupid, I’m a sock puppet, feign knowledge, I’m stupid, and a loon, “

                      At least you have learned what you are. That is a step in the right direction.

                      ” trying to say is that I require proof to believe.”

                      You have have said this many times in many different ways, all of them stupidly. You want proof before you accept that what you believe without proof is untrue. That type of thinking tells us your intellectual capacity. It is not high.

                      “I’ve communicated quite a bit on here before deciding that I didn’t have the ability to get my point across.”

                      The information transfer never passes through your brain. You have locked out alternate opinions without even knowing it.

                      SM

                    11. Sam, I should have asked your opinion as to who the troll is?

                      It seems the intelligent people from the left are all gone quite a long time ago, leaving a bunch of twits. Even with the most recent releases these twits remain without change. That is extraordinary and demonstrates their attachment to the führer that requires no thought.

          7. “He lied to us about a pandemic. “

            Which lie was that? The one based on historical knowledge, the one based on what Fauci said, the ones where the situation changed and he changed what he believed or the answer he gave that was in the pandemic response book at the CDC?

            Did he lie about getting a vaccine? No. He got it. Did the Democrats lie. On virtually every issue Trump was successful at.

            1. Why are you bringing this up? He has admitted he lied about the virus.

              What were Trump’s successes that democrats lied about? I am not trying to be combative, but I believe we need to start stating facts and stop making statements that are opinions as if they are facts.

              1. “Why are you bringing this up? He has admitted he lied about the virus.”

                The pandemic playbook’s advice was to reduce the fears of the American public.
                Dr. Fauci’s initial comments were repeated by Trump

                There are different times when Trump made comments, some good , some bad. You have to be more specific. If you wish to discuss things, then deal with some of the facts I provided instead of reworded statements. I provided the rational in my response above. The lie Woodward discusses, I think has to do with what Trump was told to say by the pandemic playbook and Fauci. I think that comment was the correct response. We can discuss the details and the rationale behind such comments, but you have to put in a bit more effort.

                1. What I was attempting to convey is that since he admitted he lied about the pandemic, it didn’t matter what the lies were. I really saw no need to list them, but I also assumed that if I did, you would come back with how many times you thought Fauci lied, but Fauci always said, “this is a new disease and we are all learning how to deal with it as we go along”. I knew that he wasn’t certain about the best path to take, but I believe he was trying to do anything he could to keep fewer people from dying.

                  There was a pandemic playbook, but it was written by the previous administration, so Trump said, he didn’t need the advice of the previous administration.

                  He lied when he said the virus was like the flu and it would be gone in a few weeks; then a few months, etc. Fauci did not tell him to do that, because after he said it, Fauci came out and publicly said that this virus would not be gone quickly. He lied when he said that he was going to have enough testing for everybody and then decided he didn’t want everybody tested because it made him look bad. He lied when he said that the CDC and Fauci were wrong and we didn’t need to wear masks. Eventually, he said we could wear masks if we wanted to, but he wasn’t, so he did give us permission.

                  1. “What I was attempting to convey is that since he admitted he lied about the pandemic, it didn’t matter what the lies were.”

                    The lie was the right thing to do early on. That was the appropriate advice from the pandemic book. You are not reading what I have written.

                    You listed lies and you were wrong on all of them. If you think you are right on any let’s hear and you can provide your thinking. Trump lied on this one issue and was right. Can you not understand why? Do you not remember what happened in the past? Do you know nothing about infectious diseases? Please do not mix up the different time frames for Fauci and Trump. That is rather annoying because it makes everything you say suspect and wrong.

                    “He lied when he said the virus was like the flu and it would be gone in a few weeks; then a few months, etc. Fauci did not tell him to do that, because after he said it, Fauci came out and publicly said that this virus would not be gone quickly.”

                    By the way, Covid is a respiratory virus just like the flu. Didn’t you know that?

                    “He lied when he said that the CDC and Fauci were wrong and we didn’t need to wear masks.”

                    Do you know anything about masks? Fauci was all over the place on masks. Do you know what “95” means on an N95 mask? Do you know the risks of masks? Do you know why surgeons wear masks? Do you know anything about CO2 retention in masks? Do you know how to fit a mask? Do you know how to manage a mask once it is on? Do you know the diameter of the pores on various masks? Do you know the diameter of a virus?

                    Do you now that when scientists deal with dangerous viruses and there is risk of exposure they don’t wear masks? Do you know why? I’ll answer. They wear hazmat suits.

                    You draw so many conclusions with so little knowledge and then you are snarky.

                    1. I’m not sure you’re reading my comments. What playbook? As I said previously, the only playbook I’m aware of is the one that was prepared by administrations prior to Trump’s presidency and it’s my understanding that Trump said he didn’t need the advice of former administrations.

                      Yes, I know COVID and the flu are respiratory viruses. So are pneumonia and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) . That doesn’t make them anything alike. Trump said Covid wasn’t anything to worry about; it is just like the flu.

                      No, I know nothing about infectious disease, so I rely on the professionals. I had to laugh when I read: “Please do not mix up the different time frames for Fauci and Trump. That is rather annoying because it makes everything you say suspect and wrong”, as if you aren’t already annoyed with me and you aren’t already suspicious of everything I say, and you don’t believe I’m wrong before you even read my replies.

                      As you saying that we should wear hazmat suits to protect from Covid? I can imagine what the republican party would have to say about that! I don’t know anything about the differences in masks. All I know is that CDC said that if we wore masks, it might help us stop the spread of Covid. I hate masks, but I wore one in public, because I felt it was worth trying in case it might help. I couldn’t wait to get to my car and rip that mask off. I also know that there is some C02 retention when wearing a mask, but my research showed that studies prove Co2 retention doesn’t occur at high enough levels to cause concern. As a former smoker, I definitely felt the effects of C02 retention. Yes, Fauci and CDC were all over the place, but as I previously said, Fauci always told us that that they were learning about this virus as it progressed and that their recommendations were based on what they knew at the time they made those recommendations. Fauci said from the beginning that it would take a long time to get rid of this virus.

                      If everything I said that Trump lied about was not a lie, why did he tell Bob Woodward: “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down because I don’t want to create a panic,” Trump said in a call with Woodward, according to an audio clip. “Now it’s turning out it’s not just old people, Bob. But just today, and yesterday, some startling facts came out. It’s not just old, older,” Trump said, according to an audio clip, and then added, “young people, too, plenty of young people.” I don’t feel that Trump had a right to make the decision that Americans should not be told the dangers they were facing. Americans were dying while he was telling them that this was not dangerous. Americans have long-term side effects from Covid, because they believed him when he said it wasn’t dangerous.

                      I certainly have no illusions that I have a lot of knowledge. If I have stated something as fact, it is because it has been proven. I think I have identified my other statements as opinions. If not, I apologize. I am not intentionally snarky, but as I’ve said throughout this thread, I do have a problem with opinions which are stated as fact, with no proof to back them.
                      .

                    2. “I’m not sure you’re reading my comments. What playbook?”

                      You do not know? Stored at the CDC were many things needed for a future pandemic. Much of the supplies were used by Obama and never replaced. There was also a book of recommendations by experts that told future Presidents how to handle a pandemic. Trump’s lie was when he followed the expert’s advice.

                      “pneumonia”

                      Pneumonia is an inflammation of the lung by viruses and bacteria. In the context that you are using it, Pneumonia would be Pneumococcal Pneumonia which is a bacteria.

                      I can’t help it that most of your comments are non-responsive to mine and are in error. Nothing wrong with that, except when pointed out, you should become more circumspect.

                      “As you saying that we should wear hazmat suits to protect from Covid? ”

                      No. I am telling you that your reliance on masks is inappropriate.

                      “that studies prove Co2 retention doesn’t occur at high enough levels to cause concern.”

                      I’d like to see the studies you read because though the rise in CO2 might not be catastrophic it does cause some undesirable effects. High CO2 makes the Ph of the blood fall. The body has to compensate for that.

                      But, what about people with various illnesses?. Is that mask harmful? Think about it and draw your conclusions.

                      Do masked children have problems? We express ourselves with facial movements, therefore we are negatively impacting a child’s development even though their risks from Covid are very low and the mask IMO won’t help. Masks don’t work in the fashion you believe.

                      ” they were learning about this virus as it progressed”

                      They were learning about the virus particulars. They already knew about respiratory viruses and their spread. See the Spanish Flu and multiple Influenza epidemics where the death rate was high.

                      Fauci did a horrible job and never stopped contradicting himself. He should never have been in charge for multiple reasons. I also question his integrity financially. Though he gets one of the highest salaries in government he gets money from companies he has dealings with. His wife works there as well and is also very highly paid. Though his income stream is supposed to be released it never was. Investigations discovered the alternate income streams. Physicians have to disclose that type of information when they publish.

                      He has one of the highest salaries in the government and he gets money from all sorts of companies. He has refused to provide his income and where it comes from. His wife is also one of the highest paid. One has to question everything he says along with his income stream.

                      “If everything I said that Trump lied about was not a lie, why did he tell Bob Woodward: “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down because I don’t want to create a panic,”

                      “I don’t want to create a panic,” is the reason for the lie. That is what the pandemic book told future presidents to avoid.

                      I wouldn’t trust Woodward on the rest to be accurate as to what was said and how. The disease mostly killed the elderly and the sick. Trump is not an experienced virologist and made a lot of errors during the epidemic, but he made fewer errors than the Democrats fighting him. No one could be 100% free of error. Many viruses have long-term effects. The focus you have been fed is wrong.

                      However, every step of the way the Democrats tried to stop Trump from doing what was needed. Look at NY. Cuomo killed nursing home patients.

                      ” If I have stated something as fact, it is because it has been proven.:

                      I see it differently. I see you mixing fact with opinion. I’ll give an example from this response you made. “Yes, I know COVID and the flu are respiratory viruses. So are pneumonia” I don’t worry about errors of this nature but as I said earlier Pneumococcal Pneumonia is a bacteria.

                      At present, I will accept the fact that you do not wish to be snarky and act accordingly. I don’t care how many errors a person makes unless they do so in a malicious way which is what the left has been doing for years.

                      If you believe in good government you might have believed in JFK. I’m not saying he was good or bad, only that today the Democrats would try to impeach him.

          8. “he altered a hurricane map and then lied that it was what the National Weather Bureau showed him. “

            Actually that was a trivial and stupid argument by all concerned.

            You commented on 2000 Mules without knowing it was a documentary not a movie and without knowing what was in it so I guess you can comment on weather forecasts without actually seeing them.

            If you follow the maps and the trajectories you will note that there are many trackers that differ substantially. You will also note that the predictions change with time. There actually was a prediction that was consistent with what Trump said. He should not have engaged in predictions, but he was right people out of the line drawn on the maps other nearby localities have to maintain high awareness.

            ===

            I will cease discussing what you do not know and give you time to catch up, but first it was not 1/9, It was Jan6. That was a protest where some got out of hand. It hs been shown that leftists and the FBI were also involved. I’ll provide you with one of 2 articles from Revolver. I think you need to read not left wing stuff or right wing stuff. I think you need to start reading the truth and looking at the facts.

            https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/

            This expose also contains factual information and video. It just isn’t from the sources you trust even though the videos frequently are produced by third parties as is some of the audio and a lot of the facts.

            I understand the difficulty of getting to the truth. Your problem is not that you are wrong, rather you so easily accept one side of the story without looking at the other. Enjoy. I hope you can take it upon yourself to try and look at the world with open eyes even if you vote Democrat or like Biden, Obama and Clinton. The truth is all I ask.

            1. I agree, it was a trivial and stupid point for Trump to to lie about. I put that in my list, because to me, it shows how he has no hesitation about lying about even the most trivial matters. I do not agree that any other weather map showed what he was saying. If there was such a map, he shouldn’t have identified it as a map from the National Weather Service. They denied ever drawing a map like that.

              And it is my opinion that you so easily accept one side of the story without considering the other. The truth is what I have been begging for, but you continue to give your opinions as if they are fact. The article you have cited is obviously not factual. The title says, “appears to be”. This tells me that the article is statements made by those who are expressing opinions that something appears to be the way they are saying it is. That is not any different from what I’m saying you’re doing. Opinions and appearances are not facts.

              1. “The truth is what I have been begging for, but you continue to give your opinions as if they are fact. ”

                Laurie, that is the problem. One never knows for sure if something is fact or opinion. That is complicated as facts can change. One has to judge the persons credibility. We have some on this blog with no credibility at all.

                What do you think you are getting from the TV or the newspapers? You are getting facts that are spun, and no longer fact. If the commentator remarks, Trump said this, xxx, is that a fact? Not really. A better fact would be a quote of exactly what Trump said in context. Most of the complaints by the media about what Trump said are bogus or worse, intentional lies.

                Let me show you how this works. I’ll quote you.

                “I agree, it was a trivial and stupid point for Trump to to lie about. “

                But, it wasn’t a lie. One track plotted the hurricane in that direction. A couple of hours later the track changes. Why is that a lie? If that track didn’t exist, then more likely it was an error. The news media has converted every difference of fact into a lie by Trump. Most of the times it was the NEWS MEDIA that was INTENTIONALLY lying. (We saw media lying in the Russia Hoax, Ukraine Hoax, Steele Dossier etc. That is what the Sussman trial is all about, lying on the part of Sussman, the media, Baker, the FBI etc.)

                Trump exaggerates. He is a promoter of different types of real estate and resorts. There is a word for what he does, puffery (promo, publicity). As a rule, Trump tries hard not to lie, but he is good at telling the truth in his own fashion. As a developer / promotor, that is what he did for a living. The left and press hate him for that ability. Most of them don’t have it, so they lie instead.

                “I do not agree that any other weather map showed what he was saying. ”

                That is opinion, and the conclusion you draw is faulty. We are in hurricane season. Look on the net, and you will see all the different models showing the path of the hurricane suggested by the models. Those models are put together by the NHC to create the path and cone which changes every couple of hours. I believe Trump was correctly looking at one of those tracks. The news media made a big deal over this on purpose. They were out to get Trump, but Trump was right (even though he should have kept his distance), and the media was wrong. I believe the weather service also shows the individual tracks, so your comment “he shouldn’t have identified it as a map from the National Weather Service” is also probably wrong.

                “They denied ever drawing a map like that.”

                That is a conclusion you got from the media. You don’t know what the media actually knew, or what the spokesman had in mind, or what he knew. This conclusion was likely created to prove Trump wrong. There are many meanings details as to what occurred. The actual plotting comes from different modelers, so the NHC didn’t draw the path, the modelers did. In fact, the NHC doesn’t draw most of the models, if any. They compile them into an educated guess, and then they produce a map based on all models. Once again you have accepted conclusions from people that have agendas.

                I encourage you to question everything I say and conclude, but only ask that you do the same for the media. The media is corrupt and will lie. I try to be honest and will explain myself. Almost everything people say is based on their perspective. Mine is based mostly on an economic perspective where private ownership of property is important for individual freedom.

                Watch 2000 Mules with an open mind. Then discuss it from your perspective. You sound like a good person so I don’t think we will have that much disagreement.

                1. “What do you think you are getting from the TV or the newspapers? You are getting facts that are spun, and no longer fact.” I know that a commentator is giving opinions. Most commentators I watch and don’t state their opinions as fact. A reporter who calls themselves a news reporter should not be stating opinions as if they are fact.

                  “If the commentator remarks, Trump said this, xxx, is that a fact? Not really. A better fact would be a quote of exactly what Trump said in context.” I agree and if I’m getting the information from a commentator, I attempt to look up the exact quote on line. In an earlier comment, you partially quoted Obama. I remembered him using that line, but I had to google it to find the exact quote, and as it turned out, in the exact quote, it was apparent he didn’t say what that one line made it sound like he said.

                  “Trump exaggerates. He is a promoter of different types of real estate and resorts. There is a word for what he does, puffery (promo, publicity). As a rule, Trump tries hard not to lie, but he is good at telling the truth in his own fashion. As a developer / promotor, that is what he did for a living.” What makes you believe that Trump tries hard not to lie? In my opinion, while in office, he didn’t demonstrate that restraint. I have no idea what “good at telling the truth in his own fashion” means. Yes, Trump is a wheeler/dealer. He has also filed bankruptcy 6 times: 1991: Trump’s Taj Mahal; 1992: First of two Atlantic City casinos owned by Donald Trump; 1992: Second of two Atlantic City casinos owned by Donald Trump; 1992: Trump’s Plaza Hotel in New York City; 2004: Trump’s Hotels and Casinos Resorts; 2009: Trump’s Entertainment Resorts. He’s had court judgments against him for scamming people via a university that, by all accounts didn’t exist; He was court-ordered to pay $2 million because he had set up a charity scam. These are all proven facts. He doesn’t sound like a businessman I’d want to do business with.

                  “But, it wasn’t a lie. One track plotted the hurricane in that direction. A couple of hours later the track changes. Why is that a lie? If that track didn’t exist, then more likely it was an error. The news media has converted every difference of fact into a lie by Trump.” Yes, I agree there are frequent changes to weather maps as the storm progresses. It is my opinion that all Trump would have had to say is: I was referring to an older map, and I had not seen the updated map. Instead, he stuck to his story. A few days later, he did show a map from a service other than the National Weather Service. The map was dated several days before the hurricane and showed that the edge of Alabama could get some high winds. It was not the first map he had shown that had the sharpie line over to Alabama. It seems that if what you say is correct, it would have cleared everything up if he told the public that.

                  I don’t know if you think Wikipedia is trustworthy, but the following is their assessment of this debacle: “The Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy, also referred to as Sharpiegate,[2][3] arose from a comment made by President Donald Trump on September 1, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian approached the U.S. mainland. Mentioning states that would likely be impacted by the storm, he incorrectly included Alabama, which by then was known not to be under threat from the storm. After many residents of Alabama called the local weather bureau to ask about it, the bureau issued a reassurance that Alabama was not expected to be hit by the storm. Over the following week, Trump repeatedly insisted his comment had been correct. On September 4, he showed reporters a weather map which had been altered with a Sharpie marker to show the hurricane’s track threatening Alabama. He also reportedly ordered his aides to obtain an official retraction of the weather bureau’s comment that the storm was not headed for Alabama. On September 6, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published an unsigned statement in support of Trump’s initial claim, saying that National Hurricane Center (NHC) models “demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.”[4] Multiple agencies have investigated the possibility that political influence may have been exerted over NOAA and in June and July 2020 two reports had been completed. A report released on June 15 found that both Neil Jacobs, the acting NOAA administrator, and Julie Kay Roberts, the former NOAA deputy chief of staff and communications director, twice violated codes of the agency’s scientific integrity policy amid their involvement in the NOAA statement. On July 9, the inspector general of the Commerce Department issued a report confirming that Commerce officials had responded to orders from the White House which resulted in the statement issued by the NOAA. A third investigation being done by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has not yet been released.[5]”

                  “I encourage you to question everything I say and conclude, but only ask that you do the same for the media. The media is corrupt and will lie. I try to be honest and will explain myself. Almost everything people say is based on their perspective.” I believe that I do question everything you, or anyone else says. That’s the reason you and I are having this discussion. The main point I’ve been trying to make is that statements made without proof are not truth; they are disinformation. It could be that some of those statements will be proven to be true in the future, and if so they will then become facts. Until then, I maintain my position that they are opinions. As I’ve already said, and you haven’t changed my mind, 2000 Mules is not proof. As you’ve pointed out, we should not trust something because the media tells us it is true, and I very much agree with you. The media does lie, and I consider 2000 Mules to be media. I am adamant about not watching it, because I’m afraid I’ll turn into someone who doesn’t require proof to believe. I under-stand that the documentary makes it seem very believable, and I have no desire to risk becoming a believer in something that cannot provide proof. I’ve seen that happen to too many people these days.

                  Thank you for attempting a reasonable discussion with me. It’s apparent that we can’t agree, but it has given me some insight into a Trump supporter who doesn’t have to be angry and hateful all of the time.

                  1. “Most commentators I watch and don’t state their opinions as fact. ”

                    Unfortunately, much of what you wrote seems to come from the opinion section of the news that is spun hard left.

                    “In an earlier comment, you partially quoted Obama. I remembered him using that line, but I had to google it to find the exact quote, and as it turned out, in the exact quote, it was apparent he didn’t say what that one line made it sound like he said.”

                    That is a matter of opinion, but one not only has to look at the context of the speech but the person who said it. You have to also look at the context in which I wrote those words.

                    Can you tell me what the meaning and the intention were behind those words? We are all grateful to those who preceded us and helped us, but he was specific in his words, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” Concentrate on the words build and business. Whose property is that business built by a specific individual? Is there some type of shared ownership?

                    “What makes you believe that Trump tries hard not to lie?”

                    Because lying generally doesn’t have long-term gains though nowadays under Democrat control the rules might be changing.

                    “He has also filed bankruptcy 6 times”

                    You are dealing with talking points once again. What percentage of new businesses survive? Trump has an excellent record. That is why people and banks invested with him instead of elsewhere.

                    Casino failure: At that time others faced the same problem. That is how it is in business. Just so you know his top executives died together in a helicopter crash. That can kill a thriving business.

                    Do you know he didn’t control some of the businesses? Maybe you don’t know much about business. He does.

                    “He’s had court judgments against him for scamming people via a university that, by all accounts didn’t exist”

                    What court judgment? Get the details straight and see why initially the lawyers walked away from the case. There was no merit. Contrary to what you think there was no judgment. It was a settlement to the ambulance chasers who knew Trump’s attention would be elsewhere at that time. Why do you fall for this baloney?

                    “He doesn’t sound like a businessman I’d want to do business with.”

                    What do you know about business? Business is based on contracts and contract law. Suits occur continuously. Each party tries to come out the winner. Settlements are common because things are not black and white as you might assume.

                    “It is my opinion that all Trump would have had to say is: I was referring to an older map, and I had not seen the updated map. ”

                    Do you believe it was irresponsible for Trump to tell people to be careful? What did he do wrong? Nothing. The issue was media created to put Trump in a bad light. That is what they did and many fell for it.

                    Do you think this was newsworthy? Do you think the media doesn’t know that maps change and many models exist? No matter what Trump said the media was going to twist. The media actively lied. You are one of their success stories.

                    “I don’t know if you think Wikipedia is trustworthy”

                    Wikipedia is worthless once politics is involved. I refer you to the co-founder of Wikipedia.

                    “referred to as Sharpiegate,”

                    I refer you to the Russiagate story. Read Wikipedia at the time. Russiagate was debunked.

                    Do you honestly believe so much attention should be placed on the fact that Trump was telling people to be careful? How far are you willing to go to diss Trump?

                    Trump dramatically improved the economy. In his first year, he reduced unemployment much faster than Obama did in his last year. Trump kept us out of wars while Ukraine was attacked each time Biden was in the WH. Covid has killed more people under Biden and he had the advantage of the vaccine. I don’t count that against Biden. I blame him for his lies and ridiculous pledges on Covid. look at the agreements made in the middle east that no other President was able to do since 1948. Look at how Trump was sealing the southern border to illegal immigrants, drugs (killed over 100,000), and human trafficking Tell me what we have now under Biden who has gotten rid of Trump programs. Do you think the media should have spent so much time on Trump’s goodwill message?

                    “As I’ve already said, and you haven’t changed my mind, 2000 Mules is not proof. ”

                    But you haven’t seen it or the data. The CIA, FBI, and police departments rely on the same data from the same people. Does that data become illegitimate because it supports some of Trump’s claims? Is that how you decide what is true? Does Trump’s weather reporting make data tracking used by the FBI, CIA, and police departments invalid?

                    Why were you so willing to spend so much time on a ridiculous weather story but no time on one of the most important issues of our time? 2000 Mules is meaningful. Sharpiegate was not. Do you wish to deal only with trite?

                    ” insight into a Trump supporter who doesn’t have to be angry and hateful all of the time.”

                    Thanks, but it demonstrates that you might have closed off your mind to Trump supporters who you call hateful. What did you call BLM and Antifa when they committed arson, looted, and destroyed neighborhoods while they rioted? Did you cheer them or did you condemn them? Did you support the politicians that permitted them to ruin the lives of others or did you condemn them? There is a lot of hate but supporting the significant policies of Trump is not where that hate resides.

                    Read your history and take note that outside of war in the 20th century approximately 100 million people were killed by leftist governments solely for political reasons. Do you see that as hate? The far left in this country is tied in with the same ideology and has brought the Democrats into their way of thinking (JFK might be considered by them on the same level as Trump)

                    I noted you stayed away when I defined the similarities between Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists. Your response is, ” I have no desire to risk becoming a believer in something that cannot provide proof.

                    Is that because the hundred million killed wasn’t enough?

    2. How has Durham investigated for three years and I believe he has found only 2 people to to charge with a crime and now one has been acquitted?

      1. RE:””How has Durham investigated for three years and I believe he has found only 2 people to to charge with a crime and now one has been acquitted?””” It is an established fact that his investigation was on hold, handicapped by the quarantine requirements of the pandemic We have no further informationas to what is on the investigation bucket list beyond October.. .

        1. Attorney General William Barr said U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team has been working “very aggressively” despite the coronavirus pandemic.
          “I can’t address expectations. I can say that even with the disruption of COVID and the fact that our court system is essentially been shut down for a few months, the Durham team has been working very aggressively to move forward,” Barr said. “And as I’ve also said, this isn’t being driven by producing a report. We are trying to get to a point where we can hold accountable anyone who crossed the line and committed a criminal violation.

          1. RE:”””Attorney General William Barr said U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team has been working “very aggressively”….” Barr’s comments notwithstanding, it is said that Durham’s investigation was hobbled by the inability to engage in what might be described as ‘in close, up front’, discovery, including depositions, and grand juries, wherein close, face to face, interpersonal contact would be the order of the day. That it was severely curtailed for much more than months,in Federal govt venues. Only Durham could attest as to when he was able to resume at ‘full speed’. The veracity of anything coming out of govt sources is equivalent to giving cred to ‘the man behind the curtain’;.Consider this:https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104295

      2. “How has Durham investigated for three years and I believe he has found only 2 people to to charge with a crime and now one has been acquitted?”

        Because Durham’s job is to act as a “fixer” for the Democrats and the DC Swamp.

        If Durham was serious, he would’ve brought this case in a different Federal District than DC. My 5 year old nephew could’ve told him that a DC jury was NEVER going to convict Sussmann of anything – even if he came out and admitted to lying to the FBI – because the jury was all partisan Democrats and they knew this was a political hot potato case. And so did Durham.

        If Durham was REALLY serious, he would’ve gone after the DOJ and FBI people themselves, rather than nibble around the edges with the likes of Sussmann. There has been ample evidence available right out in the open for 5 years now with which he could make his cases, but he hasn’t.

        Why? Because his job is to be the “fixer,” to make token ‘investigations’ and ‘prosecutions’ that he (and the rest of the Swamp) knows will go nowhere and be unsuccessful. He’s there to protect the DOJ, FBI, the king (Obama), the queen (Hillary), and the jester (Biden).

        Flynn pleaded guilty because Weismann and the rest of Mueller’s goon squad threatened to go after his son if he didn’t. Also, the cost of defending himself in a DC court, where he was guaranteed to be convicted by a DC Democrat jury because politics and Orange Man Bad, would’ve bankrupted him.

        Sussmann didn’t have these issues – he knew he would never be convicted, and no undue, unethical pressure was placed upon him in the form of threats to his family. His back was covered.

        Do you understand how this DC game works yet?

        1. Okay, so you have a brilliant 5 year old nephew and you are the only one who understands the DC game. I assume you aren’t upset that Sussmann was found not guilty since you already knew that was going to happen. You do know Durham was appointed by Barr at Trump’s request, right? Are you saying that Barr and Trump were stupid enough to appoint someone who was a “fixer for democrats”? Or, did Durham switch sides after he was appointed?

          If Flynn said he was guilty to protect his son and he wasn’t guilty, he lied. I don’t remember it being proven that the Mueller investigation offered Flynn a deal to not go after his son. Flynn did hire attorneys to defend him each time he went to court, so I don’t think it’s valid to say that he couldn’t afford the expense of a trial.

          How do you know Sussmann didn’t resist any attempt to threaten his family? Please tell me what evidence there is for Durham to go after the FBI and DOJ. I have googled it and not found any evidence.

          1. Barr is also part of the Swamp. Trump screwed up by appointing him, just as he screwed up in many, many other ways with bad appointments (Sessions, Mattis, Tillerson, Scaramucci, on and on and on…), listening to bad advice from people who wanted to derail him (Lindsey Graham, McConnell, McCarthy), endorsing his enemies who wanted to destroy him (Romney in his ’18 Senate run), and his big mouth, in general.

            I’m not defending Trump, I’m giving you the facts. You choose to be argumentative and refuse to listen, but I’ll continue to give you the facts because it’s important that you be exposed to them, since you’re obviously extremely lost in a web of sophistry and rhetoric.

            Barr appointed Durham to be the fixer. An investigation to go nowhere, which would give the patina of legitimacy and make it seem like they were “getting to the bottom” of the Russia Hoax after Mueller’s Goon Squad came up empty and found no “collusion” between Trump and Russia.

            Barr’s primary interest was in protecting the institutions; therefore, Durham’s mission was to achieve the above while skating around the real perps, which were bad actors in the FBI and DOJ, such as Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker, etc.

            Durham framed the Sussmann “prosecution” as Sussmann being the “bad guy” who lied to the innocent, unaware DOJ and FBI and sent them on a wild goose chase. When, in reality, the DOJ and FBI were far from being poor little things and were the main drivers of the hoax, as well as the continued perpetuation of it.

            The facts of the hoax were pretty well understood by 2019. There were several books written about it, the contents of which Durham and his merry band of fixers *could’ve* read as a start for their investigation – IF it were a real investigation, which it isn’t. You can also read these books. One was ‘written’ by Dan Bongino (who is annoying, but it’s a good book), and I believe Turley wrote one, too. You should give them a read.

            THESE are the facts, ma’am. No amount of Devil’s Advocacy by you will change the facts.

            1. “Barr’s primary interest was in protecting the institutions; therefore, Durham’s “

              KJ, this is indeed one of the important questions. If this is true, then we have answered many questions. I think the answer is multifactorial. Barr, living in the swamp for so long was too naive. People like the Clintons aren’t just swamp people. They are a lot worse and could eat people like Barr alive.

            2. Is everything that is written in what is touted as a factual novel to be believed? According to former President Trump, there have been a number of “factual” novels written about him that weren’t true. How do you know which “facts” to believe? Is it a matter of believing the books that say what we want them to say and disbelieving any that say what we don’t want to hear? I believe that the FBI has followed up on the “facts” in these books and have found nothing. You believe that the FBI isn’t investigating. One of us is right, but I can’t say I am and you can’t say you are. We each have opinions, and we are expressing those.

              1. Lauria, I’ve said everything I have to say, and everything I’ve said is fact, not my “opinion.” It’s so obviously fact that you’d have to either be stupid or have an agenda that requires casting doubt to not see it as such.

                To say more would be talking in circles.

                Have a nice day.

                1. You showed me no proof of anything you said, and you gave me no sites that showed proof. That makes what you said opinion. Yeah, I know I’m bad about wanting to have the last word. Have a nice day.

            3. RE:””””THESE are the facts, ma’am. …””” Hardly. Your narrative is merely a scenario created, and based upon your point of view or interpretation of what you’ve heard or read. Your entire first paragraph, as structured is pure opinion, not fact, and it continues on, as such, from there. What one offers as fact should be irrefutable, footnoted and supportive of one’s position. What’s more, you proceed to deride and insult the individual to whom you offer a rebuttal. There’s too much of that in these pages in general. Too many ‘World’s Foremost Authorities’ pontificating. True, that many of the irrefutable facts of the hoax have, or are coming to light. Anyone who has been closely following events right from the beginning of the 2016 campaign and beyond, and is impartial enough to separate the wheat from the chaff,of their media sources notwithstanding, will know that. How the Steele Dossier was created, and abused in FISA Court. The individuals who were perpetrators, and the individuals who were damaged. The complicity of the DOJ and the FBI. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-828/194011/20210928164333093_FBI%20v%20Fazaga%20Amicus%20Brief%20Final.pdf The entire gambit has yet to be fully explored, developed and distilled to its essence. All the actors involved. There were many. As to what extent crimes were committed, has yet to be determined. Prior conversations in these pages have addressed the understanding that ‘dirty tricks’ in politics do not constitute criminality. Not even the FISA court has sought redress. It might be wise for all to reserve their reviews until the fat lady has sung. We’ve just heard the overture and are waiting on the first act. . https://www.justice.gov/sco/pr/russian-national-indicted-making-false-statements-fbi

              1. ZZ, this is an internet comment section, not my Ph.D. thesis. I don’t have to footnote, cite sources, or engage in any of that, because the facts are obvious, based on the actions and inactions of Mr. Durham and his team of fixers.

                Wake up and open your eyes. If you can’t see reality, you deserve my derision and insults; as I told Laurie, you have to either be stupid or have an agenda that requires the casting of doubt and obfuscation to not see and acknowledge the facts here.

                Have a nice day. Or not. I don’t really care.

                1. RE:”””ZZ, this is an internet comment section,….” You may conduct your affairs as you see fit, however, this site and the individual hosting it are hardly where one would expect to find the likes of the run-of-the mill braindead YouTube Mall Rat. Your entitled to your opinion, equally valid, no less no better than your own, yet open to challenge, criticism, or what ever, constructive, not destructive as you appear wont to do. You’re far more symptomatic of the diseases you see in others than any remedy.

                  1. …” run-of-the mill braindead YouTube Mall Rat.”

                    That’s you, brother, not me. Stop projecting your own issues onto others. We become better people when we acknowledge our own braindeadness and work on becoming smarter, more observant, and more informed. Make this day one on your new journey to higher levels of understanding about how things really work in the real world.

                    My ‘opinion’ on this matter is fact, it is how it really is. You can continue naval gazing, contemplating the hairs on your big toe (and Laurie’s), and grinding the sand finer and finer – that’s your prerogative.

                    My prerogative is to state the facts, and I’ve stated them.

  6. With the tainted jury including Hillary donors, on Friday, it appears that Mook provided an out for Sussman….

    Mook drew a distinction between disclosure to the media and the FBI….the former was approved and they had a media strategy, the latter was not approved. Therefore, Mook just gave any sympathetic juror (e.g., Clinton donor) an out to not convict Sussman, to wit: Sussman was not authorized by the campaign to disclose it to FBI, therefore he acted outside his agency for the campaign and is de facto acting on his own (i.e., not for the campaign as he claims in his defense). Of course we know this is form over substance, but that’s what the defense is going to argue.

    Unless Durham has more testimony or documents showing the campaign or someone authorized on behalf of the campaign knew Sussman was reaching out to the FBI, then a vulnerable/sympathetic juror will find reasonable doubt. Durham has block billing for Sussman but he needs more, as they will argue that he should not have been paid for unapproved actions.

    1. In voir dire, potential jurors answered that they had donated money to Hillary Clinton. It is my understanding that none of those potential jurors were put on the jury.

  7. Hopefully, when the rest of the Charmin rolls out, ‘Mr Whipple’ will be given leave to move to where it next be applied.

  8. What ever happened to; Equal Justice Under Law? Lady Justice’s blindfold is being used as a gag.

    1. I think you may be referring to the old legal system, which has been superceded in recent years. Funny you should mention gagging. Me too.

    2. If the DOJ believes the law wasn’t followed, they can file an appeal. That’s the remedy for equal justice.

  9. I am not a lawyer, but find it crazy to allow Hillary campaign contributors on a jury. John Gotti would not be able to pull off this kind of jury tampering.

    Of course, he probably killed less enemies than Hillary has.

    1. I was just listening to a Sunday morning program. Supposedly the spouse of the judge sitting on the Sussman case is handling legal issues for Peter Strock or his girlfriend? I will research this more. It seems to be that there is a lot of conflict of interest in this case. BTW, I am sure you will not hear that story on MSM.

      1. I believe before the trial began, the judge offered to recuse because of his wife’s connections. With that knowledge, the prosecutors allowed him to remain.

  10. The secular religions of Abortion, Climate Change and anti-Americanism have produced inquisitors, zealots, and Jihadists no different from the legacy faiths across the globe. The ends justify any means, any injustice, any persecution.

    The Democrats are, if nothing else, devout.

    1. Those folks are zealots in a religious sense. This is certain!

      And, now we also have the branch covidian sect.

  11. Again, without the rule of law, by deduction, you have the rule of tyranny. This is what the progressive liberals represent.

  12. As if leftists can remove their hyper sensitive political second skin and actually be impartial.
    People who pride themselves as ready in an instant for combat aren’t capable of compartmentalizing.

  13. An exceptional synopsis of how the “system” is rigging this trial toward a conclusion they want yet again. This DC system was hell bent on pillorying anybody right of center over a proven hoax & lies . Now one of their own lawyer/liar types is caught up in the very same alleged crime with considerable evidence he has lied and has perpetuated the very same hoax they used on their political opposites. The hypocrisy here is legend , and palpable. Durham may have something like an ace up his sleeve… but for sure Sussman et al is very very guilty .

  14. “Jonathan Turkey Esq. Needs to hire a logician to analyze the formal and informal errors of your arguments.”

    We realized the progress from planned parenthood to planned parent/hood (e.g. Whitmer/Michigan, Cuomo/New York). Also, the elective abortion of an unarmed woman in a prone position during the Jan 6 assembly, where DC police forced and likely directed (a la Whitmer/planned parent/hood/abduction cover-up) a riot (i.e. disorder). The progressive path and grade has precedents in diversity [dogma] (e.g. color judgment, class-based bigotry), lives deemed nonviable in Nazi Germany, redistributive change (e.g. South Africa, Libya, Slavic Spring), Mengele mandates of experimental, corruptive treatments, etc.).

Leave a Reply to ZZZDoc Cancel reply