Below is my column in the New York Post, which turned out to be the theme for the cover. Despite impressive efforts at spinning the findings by the media, the Durham Report highlighted two scandals. First, there was a comprehensive effort of the political and media establishments to perpetrate one of the great hoaxes in history — a political hit job that ultimately derailed an American presidency. Second, there was no real accountability for that effort for the main players from Clinton to Comey to Congress. It was much like The Murder on the Orient Express. The question is not “whodunit” but who didn’t do it. Spoiler alert: they all did it so no one was punished.
Here is the column:
In Agatha Christie’s “Murder on the Orient Express,” detective Hercule Poirot observes, “The impossible could not have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.”
That may be the best summary of the findings of special prosecutor John Durham in his 305-page report issued yesterday.
Not only did the impossible happen, but they all did it: the Clinton campaign, the FBI, and the media.
In hindsight, it would appear impossible.
A political campaign hatches a plot to create a false claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Making this even more implausible is that the CIA and FBI knew about the plan.
As detailed in the report, President Barack Obama and his national security team were briefed on how “a trusted foreign source” revealed “a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server.”
It then happened a few days later.
It was a plot that required everyone to take a hand in derailing a duly elected president and effectively shutting down his administration for three years of investigation and prosecutions.
In this conspiracy, there were dozens of key participants in the campaign, the government, and the media. Here are a few of the characters implicated in this report.
The report details how the Russian collusion conspiracy was invented by Clinton operatives and put into the now-infamous Steele dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign.
The funding was hidden as legal expenses by then-Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias. (The Clinton campaign was later sanctioned by the FEC over its hiding of the funding.)
When Vogel tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman declared, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.
Durham details how Elias played an active role in tracking the media campaign to push the false allegations. (Elias was recently severed by the Democratic National Committee from further representation and has been previously sanctioned in the federal courts in other litigation.)
The report details how false claims like the existence of a “pee tape” showing Trump engaging in disgusting acts with prostitutes in Moscow came from a Clinton operative, Chuck Dolan, with no known basis in fact.
Likewise, now-national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Clinton personally pushed an absurd campaign-created conspiracy theory about a secret communication line between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin through a Russian bank.
The Clinton campaign later admitted that it had indeed funded the dossier, but Clinton continued to claim that the election was stolen from her by the Russians.
Of course, this conspiracy could not occur without the assistance of the FBI, which Durham found played an eager role due to a “predisposition” of key players against Trump.
Special counsel John Durham completed a four-year review of the FBI’s investigation of allegations Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russia
Durham found the FBI’s probe was “seriously flawed” and had no basis in evidence, according to a 306-page report released Monday.
The special prosecutor found that FBI officials “discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia.”
Durham also found investigators put too much faith in information provided by Trump’s political opponents and carried out surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page without genuinely believing there was probable cause to do so.
Despite the scathing findings, Durham did not recommend criminal prosecutions or widespread FBI reforms, writing that “the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old.”
Durham’s investigation lasted more than four years, longer than the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe itself.
The dossier was discredited early by American intelligence, which learned that it might itself be Russian disinformation.
There never was support for the allegations, but the FBI launched and maintained a massive investigation anyway.
Durham noted that the FBI showed a completely different approach to allegations involving the Clinton campaign.
The Trump investigation was a “noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign.”
Nevertheless, former FBI Director James Comey would continue to reference the entirely unsupported “pee tape” in interviews.
Even though investigators found no support for the campaign-created story, in a 2018 interview, Comey delighted viewers by saying: “Honestly, I never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013.”The FBI was assisted in this effort by members of Congress on the House Intelligence Committee.
Even when the false narrative was played out and the lack of support was becoming obvious, former House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) assured the public, on March 13, 2018, that “I can certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russia.”
He never produced the promised evidence.
The most essential player in this conspiracy was the media, which pumped up the dossier as gospel. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow assured her viewers that “no major thing from the dossier has been conclusively disproven.”
On CNN, one of the guests insisted, “I think we actually have to stop calling it the ‘infamous dossier’ and increasingly calling it ‘accurate dossier,’ the ‘damning dossier.’”
CNN host Alisyn Camerota attacked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and said the dossier “hasn’t been discredited, in fact, it has been opposite, it has been corroborated.”
Durham has laid out how the most cited claims were not supported, let alone corroborated.
Indeed, he found there was no basis for this investigation to have been launched in the first place.
Yet, like in “Murder on the Orient Express,” all of the culprits were then let go.
Comey went on to make millions selling books and giving speeches on “ethical leadership.”
Former FBI special agent Peter Strzok was given a job by CNN.
Clinton general counsel Marc Elias is advising people on election ethics and running a group to “defend democracy.”
After all, this was a collective effort. In Washington, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the less culpable it becomes.
They all did it, so no one did.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
199 thoughts on ““The Impossible Must Be Possible”: How the Durham Whodunit Became Who Didn’t Do it”
The amount of new information provided by the Durham Report is astounding, which explains why the Left lie that none of it is new.
To wit, the treatment the FBI gave to Hillary Clinton when she was possibly compromised by Russian disinformation and hence collusion was “tippy toe” compared to how they treated Trump, bent over without vaseline (NB: don’t get excited Svelaz) based on a bar conversation of an Australian at a London bar, the contents of which were hearsay. The sordid, testosterone driven, aggressive, carelessness, that FBI Special Assistants like Lisa Page committed, she being an immoral, sleazy, cheating wife, with Peter Strzok, another immoral degenerate, demonstrates the bias of the FBI, all conducted by violating long established FBI principles in writing. Indeed, it was a horrific example of the weaponization of the FBI against Americans.
From the Durham Report:
The threat of foreign election influence by Foreign Government-2
Beginning in late 2014, before Clinton formally declared her presidential candidacy, the FBI learned from a well-placed CHS (“CHS-A”) that a foreign government (“Foreign Government-2”) was planning to send an individual (“Non-U.S. Person-I”) to contribute to Clinton’s anticipated presidential campaign, as a way to gain influence with Clinton should she win the presidency. 316 The FBI’s independent corroboration of this information is discussed in the Classified Appendix…….
Although Field Office- I attempted to obtain expedited approval for the FISA authorization, 319 the certified copy of the application was sent by 01 to the FBI Headquarters for final approval where it remained, according to Field Office-I SAC-I, “in limbo” for approximately four months. 320 According to another agent, the application lingered because “everyone was ‘super more careful'” and “scared with the big name [Clinton]” involved. 321 “[T]hey were pretty ‘tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President.” 322
The FISA was ultimately conditioned on the requirement that the FBI give defensive briefings to the various public officials and candidates of both political parties, including Clinton, targeted by Foreign Government-2. 325
Certain critical activity in the investigation was delayed for months due to, among otherthings, concerns that “a politician [Clinton] [was] involved,” and that the investigation might interfere with a presumed future presidential campaign. In line with the directive, the FBI ultimately provided defensive briefings to the officials or their representatives, though it took approximately 11 months from the receipt of the original allegations. 328 Clinton elected to receive the defensive briefing through her personal attorneys. 329
The use of defensive briefings in 2015 contrasts with the FBI’s failure to provide a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign approximately one year later when Australia shared the information from Papadopoulos. ….. Deputy Director McCabe informed the OIG that he did not remember participating in any discussions about providing a defensive briefing as an alternative to opening the full counterintelligence investigation. 331 McCabe noted that, at the time Crossfire Hurricane was opened, the FBI had “[t]o do some work to have a better understanding of what [it had] before tak[ing] a step as overt as providing a defensive briefing
because the … briefing could … eliminate … or reduce your ability to get to the bottom of thethreat.” 332
Indeed, as discussed below in Section IV.D. l.b.iii, the Crossfire Hurricane investigators received the initial Steele Reports on September 19, 2016 and within two days had included portions of those allegations in the draft Page FISA submission. As noted below, approximately one month later, on October 21, 2016, the FISC signed the initial authorization.
During the period between the drafting of the initial FISA request and the approval of the
application by the Deputy Attorney General, Evans (who was previously consulted regarding the allegation of Foreign Govemment-2’s foreign influence effort directed at Clinton and others) raised concerns in a call with FBI Special Assistant Lisa Page about (among other things) Steele’s personal bias, unknown sourcing, and that the use of FISA authorities was bad from a policy perspective, to which Page’s notes appear to indicate in response:
* We accept info from biased people all the time.
* Would look terrible if we pull our punch due to policy/political concern.
* We believe the info & sourcing is good.
* As leaks continue to trickle, is one of the only opportunities to see reflections. 337
Despite the concerns raised by Evans, the FBI and the Department proceeded to obtain authority from the FISC to conduct surveillance of Page slightly more than one month after the Crossfire Hurricane investigators first received the Steele Reports. The speed with which surveillance of a U.S. person associated with Trump’s campaign was authorized – in the face of the unverified Steele Reports and in the absence of a defensive briefing being provided to then-candidate Trump – are difficult to explain compared to the FBI’s and Department’s actions nearly two years earlier when confronted with corroborated allegations of attempted foreign influence involving Clinton, who at the time was still an undeclared candidate for the presidency.
Pp 69-74, Durham Report
Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page make Watergate burglars look like amateurs, while James Comey would make G. Gordon Liddy blush with envy. John “Blind Ambition” Dean, who has made a cottage industry of Watergate as a pimping moralist, is likely upset he did not serve as Counsel for Hillary in her Clinton Plan to orchestrate a coup against a President, otherwise he would be as rich as George Soros.
Professor Turley compared the treatment of the FBI towards Trump as an Agatha Christie’s “Murder on the Orient Express”. I beg to differ. Fidel Castro manipulated Cubans by lying about Fulgencio Batista, who never took away election freedoms, free market capitalism or free speech. Cubans were living an enviable life under Batista. Coward that he was, Fidel never declared his fealty towards Communism until after his successful coup against Batista, then later embraced USSR’s Nikita Khrushchev warmly. Cuba was done and has been since then.
Biden is a puppet of China, and the Democrats are living the life of Marxist kleptocrats.
Estovir, this is a national tragedy. No sane, rational and objective observer would review the abundance of facts and evidence and conclude anything other than a cabal is currently operating at the highest levels of our government to destroy this constitutional republic. For years there has been scare quotes around the mysterious entity called “The Deep State.” The Durham Report has obliterated the need for those scare quotes. The Deep State is this cabal that we see orchestrating this $hit show of a federal government. And with a state run media executing a coordinated campaign of disinformation, misinformation and gaslighting, they are now freely operating in plain sight. The only question remaining is what will be the breaking point for our citizens.
“The amount of new information provided by the Durham Report is astounding,”
Maybe you can answer these two questions from Roger Stone :
1. What did Mr. Durham know when he released his report, that he did not know prior to 11/3/20 presidential election?
2. Why did Mr. Durham delay publication of his final report until he was certain that the 5-year statute of limitations under which Hillary Clinton and her aides, as well as the top intelligence and judiciary officials of the Obama and Trump Administration, could have been prosecuted for the crimes he documented?
For you gladly put up with fools, since you are wise yourselves.
– 2 Corinthians 11:19
There is an apostolic injunction to suffer fools gladly. We always lay the stress on the word “suffer”, and interpret the passage as one urging resignation. It might be better, perhaps, to lay the stress upon the word “gladly”, and make our familiarity with fools a delight, and almost a dissipation. Nor is it necessary that our pleasure in fools (or at least in great and godlike fools) should be merely satiric or cruel. The great fool is he in whom we cannot tell which is the conscious and which the unconscious humour; we laugh with him and laugh at him at the same time
1) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by destroying federally subpoenaed emails and devices in order to hide evidence.
2) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by sending classified government communications on her own, through an unsecured home-brewed server.
3) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by hiring—through three paywalls—a foreign national, who is prohibited from working on presidential campaigns, to compile a dossier to smear her presidential opponent.
4) Trump did not violate federal campaign laws, as did Hillary Clinton, by hiding her payments (as “legal services”) to Christopher Steele through bookkeeping deceptions.
5) Trump did not, as did Bill Clinton, use a crony to search out a high-paying New York job for a paramour in order to influence her testimony before a special counsel.
6) Trump did not, as did Bill Clinton, receive a $500,000 “honorarium” for speaking in Moscow while his wife, our secretary of state, approved a longstanding and lucrative desire of the Kremlin for North American uranium to be sold to a Russian consortium.
7) Trump did not, as did Barack Obama, promise Vladimir Putin that he would be “flexible” on “missile defense” if during his own reelection bid Putin in return would give him “space”. That quid pro quo arrangement led to the U.S. abandonment of key joint missile defense systems with Poland and the Czech Republic, and, reciprocally, less than two years later a Russia invasion, mostly unopposed by the United States, of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.
8) Trump did not boast publicly, as did Joe Biden, that he used U.S. foreign aid monies as leverage to have the Ukrainian government fire a prosecutor who may have been looking into the Biden family’s efforts to sell influence to corrupt Ukrainian interests.
9) Trump did not, as the Bidens did, set up a family consortium to leverage monies from Ukraine, Russia, and China, on their shared expectations that he might soon run for and be elected president and become compromised. Trump is not mentioned, as is Joe Biden, in family business communications as a recipient of a 10 percent commission on such payoffs.
10) Trump did not, unlike Joe Biden, remove presidential papers—without any authority to declassify them—and leave them scattered and unsecured in a garage and various residences and offices.
11) Trump did not, as did the FBI, wipe clean subpoenaed mobile phone records.
12) Trump did not, as did interim FBI head Andrew McCabe, admittedly lie under oath on four occasions to federal investigators.
13) Trump did not, as did CIA Director John Brennan, admittedly lie on two occasions while under oath to the U.S. Congress.
14) Trump did not, as did Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, admittedly lie on one occasion to the U.S. Congress.
15) Trump did not, as did James Comey, claim amnesia or ignorance 245 times while under oath before the U.S. Congress.
16) Trump did not, as did FBI Director James Comey, summarize a confidential private conversation with a president and then deliberately leak that classified memo to the media for his own agenda of appointing a special counsel to investigate the president—which turned out to be his friend Robert Mueller.
17) Trump did not, as did Robert Mueller, claim ignorance while under oath when asked about the Steele dossier and Fusion GPS, the catalysts for Mueller’s own investigation.
18) Trump did not, as did private citizen and former secretary of state John Kerry, meet clandestinely while out of office with Iranian officials to help them resist current U.S. policy toward Iran—or what the Boston Globe characterized as “unusual shadow diplomacy” to “apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.”
19) Trump did not, as did the FBI and CIA, pay clandestine money to Twitter to monitor and smother news stories deemed unhelpful to their agendas.
20) Trump did not, as did then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whip up a mob at the doors of the Supreme Court by threatening two sitting justices by name to intimidate them concerning an impending judicial ruling: “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.”
1 To you, O Lord, I call; my rock, be not deaf to me, lest, if you be silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit.
2 Hear the voice of my pleas for mercy, when I cry to you for help, when I lift up my hands toward your most holy sanctuary.
3 Do not drag me off with the wicked, with the workers of evil, who speak peace with their neighbors while evil is in their hearts.
4 Give to them according to their work and according to the evil of their deeds; give to them according to the work of their hands; render them their due reward.
5 Because they do not regard the works of the Lord or the work of his hands, he will tear them down and build them up no more.
6 Blessed be the Lord! For he has heard the voice of my pleas for mercy.
7 The Lord is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him.
8 The Lord is the strength of his people; he is the saving refuge of his anointed.
9 Oh, save your people and bless your heritage! Be their shepherd and carry them forever.
Whom is it the DNC wants to run against in the 2024 Presidential Election ?
Professor Turley Writes:
“..one of the great hoaxes in history — a political hit job that ultimately derailed an American presidency.”
Here Professor Turley reverts to an old tendency he had throughout much of Trump’s presidency. That is, he refers to Donald Trump as a ‘theoretic’ president and not the actual man he was.
The president Turley refers to could be George H W Bush, a tried and true statesman with years of experience. Turley is horrified that a statesman on that level could’ve been brought down by a deep-state conspiracy to smear him as a stooge for Russia.
But as we all know, Donald Trump was the first president in history who had never held public office nor served in government. What’s more, Trump was given to uttering falsehoods and was widely perceived as a man of endless grievances.
In other words, ‘Trump was no statesman at all’.
Prevarication And Propaganda Alert Here!
Watch Where You Step.
“The president Turley refers to could be George H W Bush, a tried and true statesman . . .”
First attribute to Turley an argument he never made. Then refute that argument.
That’s a straw man — a classic trick of deceivers and manipulators.
“Durham did not recommend criminal prosecutions or widespread FBI reforms, writing that ‘the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old.’” I agree with Durham that more rules serve only to become more broken rules. Such is the nature of what has become of Washington, DC. Faithfulness to the Constitution is what matters. Without an obligation and duty to the rule of law and ethical behavior from the highest authorities of government what will unfold is the witnessing of the end of the Republic and representative democracy.
Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540) was an Italian historian and statesman considered one of the major political writers of the Italian Renaissance. He had a dim and not unrealistic view of times such as these when he wrote:
“All cities, all states, all kingdoms are mortal; everything comes to an end, either by accident or by the course of nature. That is why a citizen who witnesses the end of his country cannot feel so distressed at her misfortune with so much reason as he would lament his own ruin. His country has met the fate which in every way she was bound to meet; the misfortune is wholly for him whose unhappy lot has caused him to be born in a time when such a disaster had to occur.”
A renewed fidelity to the rule of law is the best we can hope for if the otherwise inevitable death of the Republic is to be kept delayed.
Make America Great Again
Who said that?
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Ron A. Hoffman,
A very interesting and thoughtful comment.
However, watching our obvious decline of our society, to include the rule of law as the Durham report has pointed out, our Republic is near its death if not already there.
The Banana Republic of America.
U P – At least Banana Republics have warm weather. Earlier this week in the upper Midwest, we had a morning low of 27F.
“IF THEY MEAN TO HAVE A WAR, LET IT BEGIN HERE.”
From Lincoln/Marx to Brain-Dead Biden.
How long did it take the American Founders?
“The American Revolution was an epic political and military struggle waged between 1765 and 1783 when 13 of Britain’s North American colonies rejected its imperial rule. The protest began in opposition to taxes levied without colonial representation by the British monarchy and Parliament. As the political disagreements grew, they triggered a perpetual cycle of defiant acts and punitive laws that led to open rebellion. With the assistance of France, the American colonies were able to defeat the British, achieve independence and form the United States of America.”
1754 – 1776: Prelude to Independence
The Implementation of Taxes
From 1754 until 1763, the British colonies and France fought an expensive land war on the North American continent known as “The French and Indian War.” To recoup these expenses and raise funds to replenish their coffers, the British government enacted a series of new taxes. Until the Stamp Act of 1765, some taxes were proposed, and others were enacted and withdrawn. This was the first tax imposed directly on the 13 American colonies. Benjamin Franklin testified before Parliament that the tax was too high and that the colonies had already done more than enough to support the French and Indian War. That same year, the group known as the Sons of Liberty was established.
The Consequences of Unrest
In 1767, Parliament imposed the Townshend Acts, which placed a duty on several essential goods, including tea. A year later, the Liberty, a sloop owned by John Hancock, was seized on suspicion of smuggling. The growing unrest following this event led to the Occupation of Boston by British troops in 1768. The tensions in Boston came to a head on March 5, 1770, as a mob gathered around a group of soldiers guarding the Custom House. The unruly protestors threw snowballs and other debris at the soldiers. Amid the chaos and without a direct order, the soldiers fired into the crowd, killing five men and wounding six others in what would be known as the Boston Massacre. John Adams successfully defended the soldiers, but patriots like Samuel Adams, John’s cousin, used the event to garner support for the independence movement.
No Taxation Without Representation
The Tea Act was passed in 1773 to financially assist the struggling British East India Company (EIC) by placing a small tax on tea. Many colonists opposed the tax and continued to support James Otis Jr.’s position of “taxation without representation is tyranny.” The EIC secured passage of the tea via consignees in the American colonies. Seven ships were sent to the colonies carrying the cursed tea. While attempts in other cities were successful to send these ships back to England, three ships landed in Boston. Over a three week period, many town meetings were held to discuss the volatile standoff between citizens and Governor Hutchinson. On December 16, 1773, the final town meeting moved from Faneuil Hall to Old South Meeting House because of the overwhelming crowd size. Numerous speakers, including Samuel Adams, debated the issue. Toward the end of the meeting, after sensing no resolution, the crowd headed to Griffin’s Wharf. Members of the Sons of Liberty, some loosely disguised as Mohawk Indians, climbed aboard the ships and threw 340 tea chests overboard. This act of defiance later became known as the Boston Tea Party.
Responses From All Around
The British responded to the Boston Tea Party by passing the Coercive, or Intolerable Acts, as they were known in the American colonies. Not everyone agreed with Boston’s actions, causing the other colonies to rally in defense. Patrick Henry would give a speech in Spring of 1774 in the Virginia House of Burgesses supporting the cause of freedom, which included the oft-quoted passage, “Give me liberty or give me death.” The cause of independence was also championed in later writings, such as Thomas Paine’s 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense.
1775: Fighting for Independence
Erupting in Battle
The growing tensions prompted the British monarch to declare Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion and ordered that the American patriots be disarmed. A British unit left Boston Common and marched on nearby Lexington to capture rebel leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock as well as their cache of weapons and ammunition. A prearranged signal of light from the steeple of the Old North Church, “One if by land, two if by sea,” alerted Paul Revere and William Dawes to ride toward Lexington and Concord to spread the alarm that the British soldiers were on the way. Minutemen first engaged the British in open combat on April 19, 1775 on Lexington Green where “the shot heard ‘round the world” was fired. Prior to this skirmish, Captain John Parker uttered the phrase, “if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
– Boston Tea Party Experience https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/american-revolution
It is completely beyond my understanding of dignity how these people can show their face in public with absolutely no shame. It speaks volumes of their utter contempt and hatred of Americans.
Somebody said it.
Even more astonishing is how many of your countrymen agree with them. That is why they can shamelessly show their faces in public.
Time Magazine declared Joseph Stalin Man of the Year…twice.
Shame is not in these peoples DNA
Joseph Stalin, Man of the Year | Jan. 4, 1943
From Joe Patrice, published in “Above the Law” on May 18, 2023:
Jonathan Turley Bills Durham Report A Success ‘Despite A Lack Of Evidence’ Which Is The Most Jonathan Turley Sentence Ever
And I commend the Eagles on their Super Bowl championship despite a lack of points.
“It is not clear whether Durham was able to get a full account from these sources, but he was still able to establish the details on how this unprecedented political hit job succeeded despite a lack of evidence.” You’d be forgiven for believing this sentence more at home on Ancient Aliens than among the collected works of a law professor, but Jonathan Turley is no ordinary law professor. And besides, Ancient Aliens at least claims to have evidence.
In the latest addition to his personal weblog, Turley commends former special counsel John Durham upon the conclusion of a nearly four-year, $6.5 million quest to find insidious corruption behind the Russian collusion allegations surrounding Donald Trump. While the investigation turned up nothing, Durham did pen a lengthy report and it’s this month’s selection in the Turley’s Book Club:
For those interested in the truth about the Russian collusion investigation, the Durham Report has hundreds of pages of details of the alliance of political, government and media figures behind arguably the greatest hoax in U.S. history. The only thing it does not have is an actual indictment or true accountability for the critical players in an effort to derail an American presidency.
This final thought presents a bit of a sticky wicket for Turley. Because the Department of Justice vested Durham with the power to get “an actual indictment” and seek “true accountability,” yet he never managed to find any evidence that might allow him to do any of those things. So when Turley talks about the “hundreds of pages of details,” he’s borrowing from the inimitable Lionel Hutz:
Hearsay (cartoon omitted)
The 300+ pages of the Durham report present a whole lot of conjecture that Durham knew he could never substantiate occasionally punctuated by conjecture that Durham tried and failed to substantiate. Even Durham finds himself sheepishly walking back his whopper of a tale. After all those pages, Durham’s imagination comes up short when forced to issue recommendations, merely offering, “This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI….”
To borrow an analogy from Turley’s article, that’s like the NTSB penning a detailed, graphic account of the Hindenburg disaster and concluding with, “Welp. Sh*t happens.”
Perhaps Turley deserves a slice of credit to that extent because, unlike Durham, the professor is upfront that the report rests on “a lack of evidence.” But Turley has a theory on how to fix that and uncover all the evidence that John Durham never could!
Buried in the detailed account is a little noticed footnote stating that Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” Likewise, Durham noted that “no one at Fusion GPS … would agree to voluntarily speak with the Office” while both the DNC and Clinton campaign invoked privileges to refuse to answer certain questions.
Also misleading because they both, in fact, testified.
This isn’t entirely fair, as Turley acknowledges later in the piece that Elias testified at trial, but handwaves away that testimony as “strictly limited by the court.” Which is true to the extent it was limited to the precise events Turley is ranting about. Does he want Elias to share his tips for making risotto?
Congress can now use that foundation to compel cooperation from key figures in this scandal, if necessary, under a grant of immunity. The witnesses could still be prosecuted if they lie or mislead congressional investigators or commit perjury.
You know who else could’ve used a grant of immunity to compel testimony? John Durham. Maybe it slipped his mind. Maybe the reason Durham couldn’t come with any evidence for his theory wasn’t the lack of strategic grants of immunity but because there is no evidence. Who’s to say, really?
Turley should know this, of course. He might be deliberately obtuse at times to please his audience, but he must have a foot firmly based in reality that understands the difference between conspiracy theory and reality.
Even if one is willing to suspend disbelief over the latest “trust us we’re the government” press release, it ignores that fact that the FBI was accused again in 2020 of playing a role in burying the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Although I sometimes agree with Patrice, I think he misunderstood the admittedly poorly drafted language here:
“It is not clear whether Durham was able to get a full account from these sources, but he was still able to establish the details on how this unprecedented political hit job succeeded despite a lack of evidence.”
Joe Patrice seems to think that “despite a lack of evidence” refers to Durham’s investigation, but I assume Professor Turley meant a lack of evidence against Trump.
Durham was charged by Bill Barr to come up with criticism against the FBI, something to support the false “political hit job”narrative. All Durham came up with was innuendo, which Turley then parlays into the “derailment” of Trump’s “presidency” by some alleged cabal consisting of Hillary Clinton, the FBI and mainstream media. That’s just not true. Trump’s campaign did collude with Russian hackers, but this wasn’t disclosed before the 2016 election. Trump was never going to win in 2016 without cheating, nor in 2020, although he even went so far as to start an insurrection to try to prevent Biden’s win from being certified, thinking he could bully election officials in swing states, like Georgia, into taking away Biden votes and awarding them to him. He also thought that if Congress didn’t certify Biden’s victory on Jan 6th, that somehow the election could be thrown to the states and that Republican state legislatures could give him the victory he couldn’t get by winning an election. That didn’t happen, either. By 2020, most Americans saw Trump for what he is–which isn’t an effective leader, someone who is not worthy of admiration, or someone who puts America’s interests before his own. But, for someone like Turley to take the fact-puny Durham Report and turn it into proof of a “political hit job” that “derailed” a presidency is just too much.
Even Turley acknowledges that there is no clear evidence to support Durham’s insinuations.
Durham was able to guess certain details that supposedly corroborate his allegations that he still can’t prove.
This anonymous low-IQ nutcase thinks “Durham was able to guess certain details…”
I would say read the report, but it is obvious you can’t read.
What has “above the law” been right about – EVER ?
Above the law actively abetted the misconduct that Durham reports.
They are part of the problem.
John B. Say, Above the Law has been consistently correct in pointing out Turley’s errors and flawed arguments.
They’ve pointed out omissions of fact and dishonest inferences from his columns. It’s not not just them who have pointed out the disingenuous nature of Durham’s report. Marcy Wheeler has been far more detailed and has explained every single issue involving the cases and incidents he was investigating. Down to the most obscure individuals who had a hand in those allegations.
Turley never goes into such details because they would undermine the false narrative he is pushing which is why others point out Turley’s false narratives so easily.
All Turley does is insinuate and obfuscate and let’s others infer erroneously from his “analysis” just as Durham did with his report.
Turley admitted Durham had no clear evidence but still claimed there it was ‘evidence’ that he was right. It’s the same BS you often use to justify a claim. Absence of evidence is evidence.
It’s notable that you don’t refute anything said by Joe Patrice.
Why cant you stick to one screen name? it is silly you think anyone believes you have anything noteworthy to say, never mind with your many aliases. Just pick one alias, like “hemorrhoids” or “no-nothing” or “im-just-here-to-copy-n-paste” or “flatulence”
“It’s notable that you don’t refute anything said by Joe Patrice.”
How long have you and Joe been dating? he writes like a bottom, and you scream like a gurl, so that sounds like a perfect hot mess. LOL
“Above the Law has been consistently correct”
Again About what ?
“in pointing out Turley’s errors and flawed arguments.
They’ve pointed out omissions of fact and dishonest inferences from his columns. It’s not not just them who have pointed out the disingenuous nature of Durham’s report. Marcy Wheeler has been far more detailed and has explained every single issue involving the cases and incidents he was investigating. Down to the most obscure individuals who had a hand in those allegations.”
A whole lot of spin and not a single testable claim.
What ommissions of FACT ?
What dishonest inferences ?
What is the “dishonest nature of Durham’s report” ?
Yes, I expect that Durham will meet with those who made allegations – Just as Mueller should have.
That is one of the points Durham has made. While the FBI KNEW the Clinton allegations were garbage, their FAILURE to investigate the Source of FALSE Allegations is a huge problem.
“Turley never goes into such details because they would undermine the false narrative he is pushing which is why others point out Turley’s false narratives so easily.”
No one credible goes into those details – because one examining those details 0 they do NOT lead to manufactured claims, and Hoax’s.
You do not grasp the difference between exploring the foundations of a claim – and character assassination.
You skip the step of demonstrating that an allegation is false or worse still manufactured – before attacking the source.
“All Turley does is insinuate and obfuscate and let’s others infer erroneously from his “analysis” just as Durham did with his report.”
Pretty much exactly what Durham and Turley do NOT do, and pretty much exactly what “above the law” has been doing for years.
“Turley admitted Durham had no clear evidence but still claimed there it was ‘evidence’ that he was right.”
BS – no clear evidence of WHAT ?
Durham provided MASSIVE amounts of “Clear Evidence” – much of which was reported long ago.
I can not cite even a tiny part of the evidence of a 300 page report – itself a digest of 4 years of ACTUAL investigation.
Are you really going to claim that Danchenko did not write the steele Dossier ?
That he was not paid by the Clinton Campaign ?
That the Dossier had no actual sources – beyond rumours from those inside the DNC as well as Glenn Simpson ?
That the Alpha Bank Data was NOT as the CIA claimed – Human falsified DATA ?
That the FBI KNEW all of this – and more in September of 2016 and STILL opened an investigation of the Trump campaign ?
That they had absolutely NO evidence that they were not lying about in the FISA Warrant application ?
Please tell me What evidence of a Crime did the DOJ/FBI have to open Crossfire Huricane ?
What Evidence did Rosenstein have to appoint a special counsel ?
What Evidence did Mueller have to conduct an investigation ?
You can debate whether Joe Biden’s conduct is legal or not – Hunter has committed numerous crimes.
But there is plenty of EVIDENCE to justify an investigation.
And NONE of this evidence was concocted from rumor and innuendo from RNC staff.
We KNOW where Joe has been. We KNOW were Hunter has been. We KNOW who hired Hunter.
We KNOW what he was paid. We KNOW that Shokin was fired. We KNOW various other parties that Hunter has engaged with,
and subsequent beneficial actions that they have received from the VP or other parts of government that were lobbying for them.
The Foundations of the Biden Corruption story are not going away – because they are FACTS.
Yet, 6 years later there are no FACTS to support any part of the Collusion Delusion.
There are no pee tapes. There is no receipts for Russian hookers. There are no secret trips to Moscow.
Trump tower Moscow was never built.
Cohen never met with Russian Hackers.
No Money went from Trump or the Trump campaign to Russian Hackers.
Stone never communicated with Wikileaks.
Carter Page actually was an asset for the CIA that DOJ/FBI blew his cover.
“It’s the same BS you often use to justify a claim.”
“Absence of evidence is evidence.”
Absence of evidence is PROOF that the REQUIRED evidence to conduct a criminal investigation did not exist.
“It’s notable that you don’t refute anything said by Joe Patrice.”
I did not even bother to Read Joe Patrice.
Is there anything he has ever written that was correct ?
Patrice is just a more educated version of you.
A better class of spin, narative and BS – but no substance.
Do you have Substance ?
I have not read Patrice. but I have ZERO doubt – that just like your posts.
Take away the spin, the narrative, and what FACTS are left will be few and meaningless.
The Clinton campaign manipulated a VERY few innocent facts – with embellishment and innuendo to create a false narrative, to trigger a Criminal investigation of Trump and his campaign. by the DOJ and FBI. Purge the steele dossier of innuendo and spin and there is nothing sufficient to OPEN a criminal investigation.
Further, after 6 years of investigation – hundreds of thousands of hours. The most thorough investigation ever done of anyone or anything.
Investigation by the press, by other countries, by the DOJ, NSA, CIA, FBI, …
and what do you have ? NOTHING!
While each Day the Biden investigation leads slowly and inexorably to MORE. There is already more than sufficient for MULTIPLE criminal investigations.
There are several crimes that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt – even if not indicted or prosecuted.
There are many others that are proven beyond the level used to convict Stone or Manafort.
I will be happy to allow Hunter off the hook for FARA violations – when you apologize to Paul Manafort.
Otherwise – you have established what the law is. You are stuck with it. The Rule of LAW REQUIRES the same law applied the same way to the Biden’s.
And that means they are ALL guilty of Money Laundering.
Regardless, there is a complete absence of evidence regarding Trump. And Absence of evidence is evidence that the evidence necescary for a criminal investigation does not exist. Conversely there is NO absence of Evidence Regarding the Biden’s.
John B. Say,
“A whole lot of spin and not a single testable claim.
What ommissions of FACT ?
What dishonest inferences ?
What is the “dishonest nature of Durham’s report” ?”
Here’s a wild suggestion, read THEIR analyses on the issues. Then you would get your answer.
They are the ones pointing out Turley’s errors and omissions with excruciating detail. It’s obvious you love detail, especially when it comes to voter fraud issues.
Their claims ARE testable and it only takes an effort to read what they are saying. Wheeler has compiled an extensive data set of evidence directly from court documents and actual evidence, not like your absence of evidence.. “evidence”. You can lead a horse to water… as the saying goes. If you question what they are saying without reading their evidence then it’s your responsibility to find out on your own. All I did was point out where you can see it. If you choose to remain in a fog of ignorance that’s your prerogative.
“Here’s a wild suggestion, read THEIR analyses on the issues.”
THEY Who ?
Above the law ?
Why should I waste alot of time on those with a long long long track record of error.
ATL is one of the most significant groups in the Tank for the collusion delusion.
Of Course they take issue with Durham – he is proving – what was self evident long ago – that ATL is a large collection of fools.
“It’s obvious you love detail”
False, Detail is SOMETIMES the means to test the truth of an assertion.
“Their claims ARE testable”
ATL has been tested repeatedly and FAILED repeatedly.
We have this discussion constantly.
It is the story of the boy who cried wolf.
When you are caught lying repeatedly – most people quit listening to you.
“and it only takes an effort to read what they are saying.”
It is self evident that I am far more well read than you are – both about the most significant works of the human race, and of current events.
But neither I nor anyone else can read even a tiny fraction of anything.
Given that I can not read everything, I choose what to read based on the track record of those doing the writing.
I have read the Bible, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, Dante, Smith, Mill, …. because these people and works have survived the test of time.
I read far more than enough left wing nut garbage by those like you here.
Why would I want to deliberately choose to waste time reading someplace like ATL which has been pretty much WRONG about absolutely everything ?
I would be hard pressed to think of a source LESS trustworthy regarding the Collusion Delussion than ATL who was one of the largest propagators of the collusion delusion nonsense.
“Wheeler has compiled an extensive data set of evidence directly from court documents and actual evidence, not like your absence of evidence.”
What that be the Same evidence that ATL was claiming to prove the Collusion delusion was REAL ?
Again Why should I waste time with the little boy that cried wolf ?
Why are YOU wasting time with those who have lied to you repeatedly ?
I want to hear the best arguments from the best of those who disagree with me.
I have no problems reading those that disagree with me.
Even on JT.org, I mostly do not read comments from those I mostly agree with.
“You can lead a horse to water… as the saying goes.”
Correct – you and ATL have had plenty of oportunity to grasp that you are shilling BS and still you persist.
“If you question what they are saying without reading their evidence then it’s your responsibility to find out on your own.”
No, it is not my responsibility to read every known liar on the planet in the faint hope of finding a kernel of truth.
I spend lots of time reading those on the left. I TRY to stick to those with a track record of honesty and quality argument.
ATL is not one of those.
You are not one of those – but it is a pleasure to dismember your arguments – or non-arguments as the case may be.
ATL does not provide the means to engage in honest debate with them. There is no reason to waste time on them.
“All I did was point out where you can see it.”
Yes, you are sending people to sites with a long track record of lying about the specific subject they are opining on.
” If you choose to remain in a fog of ignorance that’s your prerogative.”
Svelaz, I likely read more in a day than you do in a month.
Regardless over and over and over again, it has proven evident that you are abysmally poorly informed and lacking in grasp of facts, logic or reason.
That has proven true at the start of issues – like the collusion delusion and covid and the HB scandal where the facts are scarce and we have to reach judgements based on assumptions and inferences, And it has proved true at the end of the same issues where nearly all has come to light.
Above you have a long rant on circumstantial evidence, assumptions and inferences. Stupidly claiming these have no merit.
In the real world we nearly always have to make decisions without all the evidence.
A major part of being successful is the ability to deduce from the limited evidence available what is probably correct.
In December 2016 when the Collusion delusion first surfaced. it was not possible for most of us to know with certainty that Trump did not collude with Russia.
But it was possible to use the evidence available, make RATIONAL assumptions, and reasonable inferences and reach the conclusion that collusion was highly unlikely.
You were unable to do that.
ATL was unable to do that.
In Oct 2020, it was possible to look at the evidence that predated the HB laptop, as well as the evidence on the HB laptop and infer with a high degree of confidence that the laptop was NOT russian disinformation. Yet so many of those of you on the left were unable to do that.
In Jan 2020 when Covid was first hitting the news -many things were not known. But it was possible to use the evidence available, make RATIONAL assumptions, and reasonable inferences and reach conclusions – such as that a lab leak was more likely than the Wet markets, or that masks and lockdowns and other measures would not work. It was possible to grasp when the vaccine first came out and its effectiveness was announced, and the half life of immunity was announced, that it was not going to work.
I made only a few innaccurate assumptions regarding Covid. The first and most significant was that as almost no other disease – including the Spanish Flu ever infected more than about 1/3 of the population, that covid would not infect more than 1/3 of the population. That proved false. Covid appears to have infected about 90% of people. That is highly unusual. I also initially incorrectly assessd the likely effectiveness of the vaccine – though the moment it was announced that the half life of effectiveness was between 6-8 months I knew it would not work.
Here on this board repeatedly I have demonstrated the ability to address problems where we do not know all the facts and make accurate inferances and assumptions. And YOU have demonstrated repeatedly a complete inability to do either.
While you are incorrect regarding inferences and assumptions TODAY concerning the collusion delusion.
We are past inferences and assumptions and solidly into established facts.
It is absolutely true that at the start of most any issue we have a shortage of facts and must make rational assumptions and inferences.
And you have proven absymal at that.
Why would any off us bother to try to read another apologia for the Collusion Delusion ?
The reason that the Durham Report is a Dudd – is not because it is not damning, but because it tells us very little we did not already KNOW to be true.
Obama, and Biden, and significant portions of the top ranks of the Obama administration, started an attempted coup against the legitimate government of the United States. With the assistance of CAI, NSA, DOJ and FBI and a Fawning press.
As Turley notes – EVERYONE is guilty.
“The reason that the Durham Report is a Dudd – is not because it is not damning, but because it tells us very little we did not already KNOW to be true.”
“Obama, and Biden, and significant portions of the top ranks of the Obama administration, started an attempted coup against the legitimate government of the United States. With the assistance of CAI, NSA, DOJ and FBI and a Fawning press.
As Turley notes – EVERYONE is guilty.”
There was no attempted coup John. Durham, Turley, and even you have been victims of your own conspiracy theories and insinuations. In a classic example of cognitive dissonance, all three of you acknowledge there is no evidence to support what “you know to be true”. You can’t prove what you believe to be true. You have no evidence. Circumstantial evidence and inference fed by constant insinuations and assumptions is not evidence that what you believe is true. No court will accept that as bona fide evidence.
Turley saying “everyone is guilty” is an admission that he and others have no evidence of the claims. Only that they “know” because…they have no evidence. It’s a particularly vicious form of circular logic. Like what is in the Bible is true because it’s in the Bible without evidence that the Bible is true.
“There was no attempted coup”
What do you call it when those in government try to replace the head of Government ?
An attempted coup ? Sedition ? As I have noted previosly – had it occured during a war it would be treason.
Do you think the FBI/DOJ/CIA conpsire together to engage in an unconstitutional investigation of a sitting president on a lark ?
These same people were leaking Obviously FALSE stories to the press for years. Was that just for $hits and giggles ?
“John. Durham, Turley, and even you have been victims of your own conspiracy theories and insinuations”
As Musk noted recently – The conspiracy theories have proven TRUE.
I would further note that the NORM for a conspiracy theory is a beleif in something that makes no sense and is highly improbable.
It Was ALWAYS highly improbable that Putin wanted Trump as president.
It was ALWAYS highly improbable that Trump would risk life in Jail for a tiny amount of assistance from Putin when dumping a small amount of his personal wealth into the election would produce better results faster.
It was ALWAYS highly improbable that Trump was able to pull off the world most incredible spycraft as a rank amateur leaving absolutely no fingerprints anywhere.
Nothing that CIA, NSA, FBI, the Media or anyone else could find even the tiniest thread to pull on.
YOU are the one suffering from beleif in conspiracy theories.
“In a classic example of cognitive dissonance, all three of you acknowledge there is no evidence to support what “you know to be true”.”
ROFL, False, I have listed lots of evidence. The Durham report is chck full of evidence that YOU have spent years buying a false conspiracy theory and that from the start I have been correct.
The cognitive dissonance is yours.
Further YOU are once again LYING – and OBVIOUSLY – Pick whatever “conspiracy theory” you think I am selling – and I will be happy to list all the evidence.
And then you OWE me and everyone else an apology for LYING.
Evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof that left wing nuts such as yourself will accept are three entirely different things.
The collusion delusion is an example of something with NO EVIDENCE.
Hunter Biden’s Crimes are an example of something that can not be proven to YOUR impossible and biased standards.
Joe Biden’s misconduct in office is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether that conduct is Criminal has plenty of evidence, but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Further, it is not necessary to Prove Criminality on the part of Joe Biden. He is never going to be charged with a crime.
Garland should have appointed a special prosecutor years ago. Barr should have done so before resigning.
But there is not even an investigation by FBI/DOJ of Joe Biden’s conduct. That alone is damning.
And more and more we find the Biden admin engaged in obstruction of congress – which YOU established as a serious crime.
After all Bannon went to ail for failure to comply with a subpeona. Yet the Biden admin is routinely doing just that.
In Svelaz World flaunting subpeonas is OK if you are a democrat.
Regardless, the “end Game” is clear to everyone. At some point, Joe Biden is going to pardon Hunter and his family, and himself.
The only question is when that will occur.
House republicans may or may not seek to impeach. I strongly suspect they will not. They can not get the votes in the senate to remove, and the only advantage to doing so is to tie the senate up in an impeachment trial.
It is more likely that The House will more selectively impeach lower Ranking Biden officials. Particularly those where there is some chance of getting democrat votes. And where getting democrats on the record voting against impeachment is politically useful.
Regardless, Democrats have politically weaponized impeachment, It is not a tool that Republicans are free to use when it is to their advantage.
“You can’t prove what you believe to be true. ”
I can not prove that it is always possible to draw a straight line between two points. That is STILL a foundational element of geometry.
I can not prove anything to your satisfaction – because you still beleive the collusion delusion is true, and the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation.
I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden has committed a number of crimes.
That Joe Biden is corrupt.
That the 2020 election was rigged.
That you can not conduct an election using mailin voting without creating the oportunity for numerous types of fraud.
That you do not accept any of those is evidence of your poor logical abilities.
“You have no evidence.”
I have a great deal of evidence. That assertion is just nonsense.
You do not know what circumstantial evidence is and what its merit is. All or nearly all forensic evidence is circumstantial.
DNA and finger prints are circumstantial evidence. Some circumstantial evidence is weak. Some is better than eyewitness accounts.
We infer things all the time. In there are even formal laws of logical inference.
If A then B
a formal rule of logical inference. Modus Ponens.
The merit of an inference rests on logic and reason.
Concluding that A murdered B when there is no eyewitness, But the bullet that killed B was to a high probability fired from a gun found at the scene with A’s fingerprints and DNA – it is an INFERENCE that A killed B. The evidence is entirely circumstantial.
“fed by constant insinuations”
I do not insinuate things – I state them bluntly.
All our conclusions are ALWAYS based on assumptions.
Even with eyewitness testimony – we must assume the witnesses are telling the truth.
As is typical you engage in (bad) wordplay
assumptions, circumstantial evidence, inferences, standards of proof
are all ALWAYS present.
The question is not whether assumptions are made – they ALWAYS are made. But whether they are reasonable.
Stating that something relies on assumption is with most real world claims a tautology.
The question is the quality of the assumptions – and YOUR track record is absymal. While mine has been excellent and Turley’s has been good.
Circumstantial evidence, inferences, etc. are all the same.
Arguments made on circumstantial evidence can be incredibly weak – look at your arguments.
Or they can be far better than eyewitness testimony.
Inferences can be logical to the point of absolute certainty – or they can be complete garbage – like yours.
You are playing games with words. You are imputing strength or weakness to words like circumstantial, or assumption or inference that is not part of the meaning of those words.
“No court will accept that as bona fide evidence.”
More word games – what is the “that” that no court would accept ?
Courts accept circumstantial evidence all the time.
Prosecutors, Judges, Juries make assumptions and inferences all the time.
We hope they do so well, and we hope they follow established rules.
“Turley saying “everyone is guilty” is an admission that he and others have no evidence of the claims.”
No, it is litterally noting that this was a massive conspiracy.
This is a very damning conclusion.
Large scale conspiracies are NORMALLY very rare. It is USUALLY exponentially more difficult to get more people to act immorally and keep that secret even for a short time.
The FACT that we have a large conspiracy that to a large extent survived for years is PROOF of moral failure on the part of those involved.
There are ALWAYS a small portion of people who will act immorally without any qualms.
When we see large numbers doing so, that is a symptom of very serious societal problems.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Adam’s correctly notes that without morality – people are not governable. We will decay to anarchy and chaos.
Large conspiracies that endure for significant time are a damning condemnation of societal failure.
““There was no attempted coup”
What do you call it when those in government try to replace the head of Government ?
An attempted coup ?”
How can it be an attempted coup when Hillary conceded ? Investigating foreign interference which did occur, but did not change the outcome is not an attempted coup. You seem very confused indeed.
“Do you think the FBI/DOJ/CIA conpsire together to engage in an unconstitutional investigation of a sitting president on a lark ?”
Ha! Their investigations were not unconstitutional. It’s their job. If there’s any evidence to investigate they are duty bound to do so. You even support this when you talk about the Hunter Biden “scandal” and Chinese payments and whatnot. You are currently in support of investigating President Biden because his son has been doing business with foreign entities. Just like the Trump children who were government employees.
“ROFL, False, I have listed lots of evidence. The Durham report is chck full of evidence that YOU have spent years buying a false conspiracy theory and that from the start I have been correct.”
LOL! Nice projection. You have presented circumstantial evidence that is at best a guess. Not clear and incontrovertible evidence which is required to assert your allegations as true.
All you have are insinuations and allegations without real evidence. Even Turley admits Durham doesn’t have evidence that proves any of his allegations true. Just insinuations and inferences borne out of speculation.
“I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden has committed a number of crimes.
That Joe Biden is corrupt.
That the 2020 election was rigged.”
No you can’t and you haven’t. As usual you rely heavily on non-evidence as evidence. That’s not even allowed in court.
“That you do not accept any of those is evidence of your poor logical abilities.”
I don’t accept any of it simply because you have not provided any clear and convincing evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law. The problem is on your end. You keep saying “evidence”, but you consistently fail to show any clear and convincing evidence. You have admitted as much and still cling to your obsession that absence of evidence is evidence.
“Arguments made on circumstantial evidence can be incredibly weak – look at your arguments.”. Like yours. It’s what YOU are offering all the time. There’s that cognitive dissonance problem popping up again.
“The merit of an inference rests on logic and reason.
Concluding that A murdered B when there is no eyewitness, But the bullet that killed B was to a high probability fired from a gun found at the scene with A’s fingerprints and DNA – it is an INFERENCE that A killed B. The evidence is entirely circumstantial.”
Not just logic and reason. Also evidence. Your poor example trying to justify inference as a valid evidence of truth leaves out the problem of evidence. You don’t have to infer anything if you already have DNA evidence.
To infer anything would be because there is an absence of enough evidence to assert a truth. It’s still not a proven truth. It remains circumstantial. Murder cases are not decided on circumstantial evidence.
“Inferences can be logical to the point of absolute certainty – or they can be complete garbage – like yours.”
No they can’t. Because an inference is only proven correct AFTER clear and convincing evidence is firmly established. Not before, which is what you’re trying to argue.
“Turley saying “everyone is guilty” is an admission that he and others have no evidence of the claims.”
No, it is litterally noting that this was a massive conspiracy.”
LOL! No. It’s noting that he is casting a wide net accusing everyone of guilt because he and Durham can’t pinpoint any specific evidence proving their allegations. It’s an intellectually lazy way of giving up on finding the evidence they claim exists by declaring everyone guilty.
“Large scale conspiracies are NORMALLY very rare. It is USUALLY exponentially more difficult to get more people to act immorally and keep that secret even for a short time.”
Large scale conspiracy theories are easy to believe and promote because they provide endless rabbit holes to dive into and sustain the conspiracy that constantly evolves in your head. It becomes a self sustaining mind trap that is very difficult to escape from and the longer it goes on the more detached from reality you get. Clearly you are way in there and as someone looking at it from the outside it’s truly a mess you’re into. Turley is already being sucked in quite deep.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams was wrong. It was made for everyone. Not just those with morality superiority complex such as yours. The majority of the founders were deists. Those who were not religious extremists and “guardians of morality”. Those who claim such things are the first hypocrites.
“How can it be an attempted coup when Hillary conceded ?”
What has that got to do with anything.
A coup is any illegitimate effort by those IN government to remove the head of government.
“Investigating foreign interference which did occur, but did not change the outcome is not an attempted coup.”
1). There was no consequential foreign interference – but glad to know you NOW admit that Trump won 2016 legitimately.
2). Cross-fire hurricane was NOT a foreign intelligence investigation, nor was the SC.
You are really badly rewriting history.
You do not need a warrant to investigate foreign actors.
You only appoint a Special Counsel when there is a conflict between either DOJ or the WH and what is being investigated.
The SC was appointed to investigate Trump.
For 22 months we got to hear the left contemplating if today was the day you would “Get Trump”
BTW the only “russian” that Mueller “got” was a Russian college student who was probably sleeping with NRA heads, and who plead guilty in a deal so that she could get out of solitary and go home.
The other “russians” Mueller prosecuted – he LOST.
“You seem very confused indeed”
Correct – YOU are very confused.
“Their investigations were not unconstitutional. It’s their job.”
No, their JOB is to follow the constitution.
The Govenrment many not investigate a US person on a lark. When Durham says DOJ/FBI procedures were not followed.
What he is saying is that the procedures established by DOJ/FBI to conform to the supreme court established caselaw for constitutional law enforement actions involving US persons.
When Durham or Horowitz says procediure was not followed – they are openly stating the investigation was outside the constitutional authority of DOJ/FBI.
You really do not seem to get that DOJ/FBI’s “job” is not to investigate whoever they want willy nilly.
When Durham says there was no foundation for an investigation – FORM THE START – he is saying that no allegation meeting the constitutional requirements to open an investigation existed.
While Durham said no foundation ever existed – in a more limited investigation Horowitz concluded that no foundation existed after Danchenko was interviewed in early 2017. But Horowitz did not have the power to interveiw members of DOJ and FBI who were no longer in government service.
So Horowitz was unable to discover that the DOJ/FBI KNEW that the Steele Dossier was a HOAX from the start.
Which is Why Danhenko and Sussman were acquited
I know that you pay noattention – HDanhenko nd Susman MITTE they Lied the FBI.
Their Successful Defense was that the FBI KNEW they were lying at the time.
18 US 1001 – the crime they were charged with violating requires that the lie must misdirect an investigation.
It is roughly the equivalent of the British “perverting the course of justice”.
Regardless, Durham established that the investigation had no foundation FROM THE START. Because DOJ/FBI KNEW the steele dossier and Alpha Bank scam were hoaxes.
“If there’s any evidence to investigate they are duty bound to do so.”
False. The constitution – not the DOJ.FBI determines the requirements that must be met to investigate a US person.
Separately though I would prefer that if the constitutional requirements for an investigation were met, that DOJ/FBI would be duty bound to investigate
The FACT is they are not.
Regardless, they may not open an unconstitutional investigation, and even if they open an investigation with a legimate foundation.
They must close it the moment they know that foundation is no longer present.
The FBI KNEW within a few days the Downer rumor did not pan out.
And they KNEW before they received it that the Steele Dossier and Alpha Bank nonsense were both hoaxes.
The F was Free to investigate Russia to their hearts content. But any intelligence operation that includes US persons as part of the investigation, Must meet the constitutional requirements to investigate that US person.
“You even support this when you talk about the Hunter Biden “scandal” and Chinese payments and whatnot.”
I have no idea what you are talking about.
With respect to BOTH Joe and Hinter Biden – the co0nstitutional requirements to investigate have been present since Hunt Biden took a role with Burisma, and Joe Biden participated in foreign policy that intersected with his Son’s business. That constitutes the minimum constitutional evidence required to open an investigation.
That is not sufficient to get a warrant. But the correspondence between Hunter and the US state department on Burisma’s behalf combined with State Department notice to the Office of Vice President that violation of federal ethics laws was present and either Hunter had to close his business in Ukraine or Joe had to remove himself from matters involving Ukraine. after that letter was issued, there was sufficient basis to get a warrant.
AQll of this was Years before the Hunter Biden laptop.
“You are currently in support of investigating President Biden because his son has been doing business with foreign entities.”
First the standards for a criminal investigation and those for a congressional investigation are different.
Congress is first and foremost conducting and investigation of the government activities of Vice President and now president Biden While he was vice president and president.
There are no constitutional limits on the power of congress to investigate the executive branch.
While the Various Congressional investigations of Trump were snipe hunts – they were legitimate if stupid – so long as they were investigations of the executive branch and its members.
The left correctly points out that if this is just about Hunter – the Congressional investigation has no merit.
But Because Hunter was involved with government activities – especially those involving his father, his government related conduct is fair game for congress.
Regardles I support investigation president Biden because as VP (and now as president) he was aware of hunter’s foreign actions, and was both to some extent involved, and because he continued to act in the same policy sphere’s as his sons actions.
“Just like the Trump children who were government employees.”
And Congress is free to investigate their activities as members of the exectuive branch.
Or their private activities While Trump was president that intersected with Trump’s presidential activities.
“You have presented circumstantial evidence that is at best a guess.”
First Congress needs no evidence at all to investigate Joe Biden’s activities as Vice President and as president.
Just as the house did not need evidence to investigate Trump’s activities as president.
The constitutional requirements for a criminal investigation by DOJ/FBI are different and must meet higher constitutional standards.
There is no right to be president or vice president. Congress has nearly limitless power to investigate the executive branch.
Regardless, there is plenty of evidence that is NOT a guess.
Just SOME of that.
Hunter was engaged in lobbying the US government.
He Traveled with VP Joe when Joe was on official business.
There is a documented violation of federal ethics laws regarding The intersection of Hunter’s private conduct and Joes official conduct that Joe was informed of in 2015.
Joe had a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a business that his son was a part of.
That alone is more than enough for a criminal investigation.
“Not clear and incontrovertible evidence”
All the above is clear an incontrovertable.
Regardless you are back to language games.
Evidence that DOJ/FBI KNOWS is fraudulent – is not sufficient to open a criminal investigation.
Evidence that is not clear and incontrovertable is.
Again refer to mountains of case law.
Regardless, nearly everyone is aware of the requirements for a warrant.
The standard for a warrant is higher than needed to open an investigation, but lower than needed to convict.
The standard for a warrant is probable cause that a crime has been committed, and probable cause that the search will turn up evidence.
With the scope of the search and what is being searched for clearly specificied.
That standard has been met.
It was never met regarding crossfire huricane and the SC.
“which is required to assert your allegations as true.”
I have never said the allegations are true – at-least not those related to criminal conduct by Joe Biden.
Again word play – the standard to open an investigation is NOT a true allegation.
It is a credible allegation.
If you KNOW the allegation is false – as with the steele dossier and the Alpha bank scam – that is not a credible allegation.
There is a long list of criminal conduct by Hunter that is PROVEN true.
The allegations regarding Joe are credible – not proven.
I think they are likely True. But you are free to disagree.
Regardless, the allegations regarding Joe are regarding his Official conduct as VP or president.
Congress has near limitless power to investigate presidents and vice presidents actions as president and vice president.
“All you have are insinuations and allegations without real evidence.”
Nope. we have been over this.
“Even Turley admits Durham doesn’t have evidence that proves any of his allegations true. Just insinuations and inferences borne out of speculation.”
False and you are jumping issues.
Durham has proven misconduct by DOJ/FBI – That is not in question.
Unlike Mueller – Durham did not report speculation. He reported what actually happened.
““I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden has committed a number of crimes.
That Joe Biden is corrupt.
That the 2020 election was rigged.”
No you can’t and you haven’t.”
Of course I can and have.
Do I really need to list all the crimes Hunter has committed ?
Do I really need to list all the election laws that were ignored in 2020 ?
Do I really need to list the government efforts to censor political speech in 2020 ?
It may or may not be true that VP Joe exceeded the high standard that Scotus decided was criminal in mcdonald.
But it is evident that Joe was in violation of federal ethics laws that required that his families business interests and his actions as vice president can not intersect.
“As usual you rely heavily on non-evidence as evidence. That’s not even allowed in court.”
False and irrelevant. Pretty much all the evidence I rely on would easily get into court.
Bank records, state department emails. Public remarks, presidential and vice presidential records.
Beyond that – we are not in a criminal court. There really are no rules governing what is admissible in the house.
And many things are admissble in a GJ that are not in a criminal court.
“I don’t accept any of it simply because you have not provided any clear and convincing evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law. ”
I have and that is not the standard.
You continue playing this stupid game that you have to be able to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt to get into a court – if it iiinvolves the Biden’s.
But anything goes if you want to investigate Trump.
“You have admitted as much”
That is a LIE.
“Not just logic and reason. Also evidence.”
Yes, Circumstantial evidence.
“Your poor example trying to justify inference as a valid evidence of truth leaves out the problem of evidence.”
inference is not evidence. Inference is the logical process by which you determine what evidence means.
“You don’t have to infer anything if you already have DNA evidence.”
Of course you do.
A persons DNA can be found at a crime scene for perfectly legitimate reasons – that is why DNA is circumstantial. As are fingerprints.
Fingerprints have been known to persist for years, DNA for hundreds of thousands of years under the right conditions.
“To infer anything would be because there is an absence of enough evidence to assert a truth.”
False ALL forensic evidence is circumstantial, and ALL of it requires inference to convict.
“It’s still not a proven truth. It remains circumstantial. Murder cases are not decided on circumstantial evidence.”
Of course they are all the time. Again ALL forensic evidence is circumstantial.
You claerly do not know what circumstantial evidence is.
Fingerprints on a gun mean you are likely the last person to hold the gun without gloves on.
That is all that means.
We INFER that if you are the last person to hold he gun without gloves on and the gun was used to kill someone,
That you killed them. A jury MAY decide that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt – and they often do.
But it is not even close to absolute proof.
Your fingerprints, your DNA are ALWAYS circumstantial evidence.
“No they can’t. Because an inference is only proven correct AFTER clear and convincing evidence is firmly established. Not before, which is what you’re trying to argue.”
You do not know what you are talking about.
You do not know what inferance means.
You do not know what evidence means
you do not know what circumstantial evidence means.,
You have no clue what the difference standards of proof for conviction, warrants, or opening an investigation are.
Nor do you use your bogus terms consistently.
“It’s noting that he is casting a wide net accusing everyone of guilt”
Because everyone is guilty – or atleast a very large number of people.
“Durham can’t pinpoint any specific evidence proving their allegations.”
That statement just means you have not read turley,. have not read Durham, and do not know what you are talking about.
“Large scale conspiracy theories are easy to believe and promote because they provide endless rabbit holes to dive into and sustain the conspiracy that constantly evolves in your head. It becomes a self sustaining mind trap that is very difficult to escape from and the longer it goes on the more detached from reality you get. Clearly you are way in there and as someone looking at it from the outside it’s truly a mess you’re into. Turley is already being sucked in quite deep.”
Back in lala land.
““Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams was wrong. It was made for everyone.”
Nope. self govenrment is not possible unless a super-majority of people share sufficient moral core values and stick to them.
This is logically obvious. If the only reason that you obey the law is because you will be punished if you get caught – we can not possibly have sufficient law enforcement to prevent everyone from committing crimes.
Totalitarian states – NOT self governing substitute terror for moral values – and require massive state police, and still are unsustainable.
“Not just those with morality superiority complex such as yours.”
Am I morally superior to you ? Certtainly – you lie constantly. Most posters on this blog are morally superior to you.
Regardless, that is not the issue.
“The majority of the founders were deists. Those who were not religious extremists and “guardians of morality”. Those who claim such things are the first hypocrites.”
No the majority were NOT deists. Most were fervent members of specific christian denominations.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Most of us know we are imperfect, but still strive to do better.
Regardless. While Adam’s connected morality and religion – and there is a strong connection.
I do not accept that morality is the exclusive domain of religion or that religion is inherently moral.
That said it IS true that most people learn morality from religion.
It is also true that the weakening of religion over the past 50 years has significantly eroded morality.
And that is dangerous.
While I dpo not trust your judgement on specific individuals – I would broadly agree that there are many who set themselves on a pedastal – particularly in the domain of religion that are hypocrits.
The most common professions for sociopaths are politics and the ministry.
You should not be speaking of circular logic.
It is a good day for you – when your arguments are strong enough to be characterized as circular logic.
Normally they are just illogical
What is with your Bible nonsense ?.
Do you think I am some christian fundamentalist ?
I did not cite Adam’s above because he is God.
But because what he said is truth.
If I cite something – whether it is Mill or Adam’s or “the bible” it is because the specific thing I am citing conveys an important truth.
The Bible expresses a very large number of important Truths, as does Plato writing about Socrates.
Regardless, I value your remarks on the bible about as much as your remarks on all the other things you know nothing about.
Have you actually read the bible ? The whole thing ? I have.
“The Bible expresses a very large number of important Truths, as does Plato writing about Socrates.”
Meaning those truths were are not sourced from the Bible. They precede the Bible and are not exclusive of religion.
Your entire arguments are based on circular logic. It’s all based on the logic that lack of evidence is evidence. That a crime was committed because the lack of evidence proves it or that you simply know, because evidence that does not provide evidence is evidence.
You have serious issues with cognitive dissonance. That’s why you don’t see your vicious cycles of circular logic.
When you start ranting I know it’s because you don’t have an argument. The longer the rant the more you don’t have an argument.
““The Bible expresses a very large number of important Truths, as does Plato writing about Socrates.”
Meaning those truths were are not sourced from the Bible. They precede the Bible and are not exclusive of religion.”
The old testament preceded Plato by centuries.
Svelaz – it is your arguments that are becoming increasingly vague, dependent on ambiguous, flexible and careless use of terms.
You do not understand the difference between the stardards necescary for the public to conclude someone is corrupt. For congress to investigate and draw conclusions or even impeach. For law enforcement to advance through the many steps from speculation to investigation to warrants, to trial, to conviction.
And you change those standards depending on who you apply them to.
You clearly have no idea what circumstantial evidence is.
Nor what an inferance is.
“Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences; etymologically, the word infer means to “carry forward”. Inference is theoretically traditionally divided into deduction and induction, a distinction that in Europe dates at least to Aristotle (300s BCE). Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular evidence to a universal conclusion. ”
Here are the rules of inference in formal logic.
Still full of Schiff.
When our federal government goes after crime families, we can reasonably expect the 3 branches of government will work together to achieve that goal. For the most part, no one doubts that crimes have been committed. For the most part it is known who committed the crimes. The challenge is in gathering sufficient evidence, securing indictments and a trial that ends in a conviction. We would expect the media would breathlessly report on this from beginning to end.
So, what would it look like if for instance a crime syndicate was operating within the executive branch of the federal government and they controlled all the levers of power necessary to indict, prosecute, convict and either imprison or remove from office? If they controlled one political party, wouldn’t that party be able to run cover for them? What would it look like if that syndicate controlled banking, big pharma, big tech, education, major media outlets, social media, etc.? What if they had convinced a majority of the population that they were the good guys and a vote for them secured our democracy? Wouldn’t they be able to operate in the open?
We might not want to admit it, but this is exactly what we are experiencing. This syndicate has been operating in the open for several years. The Durham report hasn’t really told us anything that wasn’t already known. It just comes on fancy letterhead with a signature indicating it is an official report. Under a properly functioning constitutional republic, people would be impeached and removed from office. Others would be in prison. Others still may have been executed for treason.
And yet here we are on a blog, once again picking the fly $hit out of the pepper, regurgitating the symptoms of a problem without getting to the real diagnosis.
We might not want to admit it, but this is exactly what we are experiencing.
Agreed. Excellent summary, by the way, on our current national sickness.
You and perhaps others may find the following abridged edition of St. Augustine’s City of God helpful re: our previous discussion on how Christianity shaped Western Civilization including the Founding Fathers of the United States.
City of God
Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, SJ
ISBN 13: 9780385029100
Library of Congress: BR65 .A642 1958
The original work is captured in 22 volumes which is substantial reading. I suggest to friends to read the abridged version, one volume, 550+ pages, to understand how St. Augustine’s thinking influenced Western Civilization. Once you read this work, our present national cultural collapse makes sense when one considers how our country lost its way when it abandoned religion. It is antithetical to how Western Civilization was built
You can’t go wrong in reading anything by St. Augustine
I have a paperback edition that was gifted to me by a Jesuit during college. You can find it at Amazon. It is an excellent translation
No book except the Bible itself had a greater influence on the Middle Ages than City of God. Since medieval Europe was the cradle of today’s Western civilization, this work by consequence is vital for understanding our world and how it came into being.
Thank you Estovir. I’ve bookmarked it.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝. 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐈-𝐕𝐈𝐈
Author(s): Zema, Demetrius B.; Walsh, Gerald G.; of Hippo Saint Augustine; Gilson, Etienne
Series: Fathers of the church 8.
Publisher: Catholic University of America Press, Year: 2008
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝. 𝐁𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐗𝐕𝐈𝐈-𝐗𝐗𝐈𝐈
Author(s): Saint Augustine; Honan, Daniel J.; Walsh, Gerald Groveland; of Hippo Saint Augustine
Series: Fathers of the church 24.
Publisher: Catholic University of America Press, Year: 2008
p.s., You may get a Download warning because the links use an http address instead of the secure https address,
accept and it will download.
“. . . on how Christianity” (and especially the “City of God”) caused the 1,000 years of history known as the Dark/Middle Ages.
“. . . how our country lost its way when it abandoned religion.”
Actually, the West got the Renaissance, only *after* it began to abandon religion, and embrace this world and reason.
Now your comments are accurate, and honest.
“Show me how the impossible can be possible!”
* Anyone who has committed to commissioned work should keep an eye on the “Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules!” 
* Who then take quotes out of context, often run the risk of suppressing the second side of the coin.
* Purely hypothetical (because client don’t support this narrative): To show that our host could have analyzed the report from a different angle: Here is the dialogue:
Monsieur Bouc (Director of train operator CIWL) “But I understand nothing—but nothing, of all of this! The enemy that this [American businessman Samuel] Ratchett spoke of, he was then on the train after all? But where is he now? How can he have vanished into thin air? My head, it whirls. Say something, then, my friend, I implore you. Show me how the impossible can be possible!”
Hercule Poirot (private detective): “It is a good phrase […]. The impossible cannot have happened, therefore the impossible must be possible in spite of appearances.”
Seven years after “certain matters related o the 2016 presidential election campaigns” raised, Special Counsel John Durham delivered a 306 pages “Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns”. After countless interviews  and more than 6.5M pages of documentation Durham concluded (p 305):
“An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not.”
Here are the answers to the question: “How the impossible can be possible”:
* Though “unfit for office”, Donald J. Trump became President because the election “was stolen from her”.
* # 45 was under the false impression that
– he occupies the driver’s seat (his personality doesn’t fit for a puppet role),
– his agenda finds the support of GOP lead Congress,
– those who “work for him” are loyal and
– he has advisers in his inner circle support “America 1st”
* AG Jeff Sessions didn’t appoint a Special Counsel to investigate CIA & FBI interference in ’16 presidential election
* President Trump in his own words: “I want to confirm that Bill Barr, one of the most respected jurists in the country, highly respected lawyer, former Attorney General under the Bush Administration, a terrific man, a terrific person, a brilliant man…respected by Republicans and respected by Democrats…will be nominated for the United States Attorney General position. I think he will serve with great distinction” 
* Though AG Barr’s opinion of Mr. Mueller in terms of ethics and character and professionalism is very high, (they were best friends, their wives attended Bible study together and that Mueller had attended the weddings of Barr’s daughters) , why was he origination of Trump-Russia collusion not in Mueller’s purview?
* Purely hypothetical (because according to the puppeteer it’s “too political”): Why didn’t AG appoint John Durham as a Special Counsel after Senators “Hunter Biden, Burisma,
and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns”
Let see if “oversight” will hear John Durham next week…
 This message is from a cartoon that appeared in “The Wizard of Id”, comic strip created by Brant Parker and Johnny Hart in 1964 to satirize modern American culture and politics.
 “Moreover, FBI leadership made it clear to its personnel that they were to cooperate fully with our inquiry, which, in all but a few instances involving some personnel in the Counterintelligence Division, proved to be the case. In those few instances in which individuals refused to cooperate, FBI leadership intervened to urge those individuals to agree to be interviewed. Similarly, both CIA and NSA made their employees available for interview, including John Brennan and Mike Rogers” (p 4)
 William Barr: “Address on Religious Liberty to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame”, South Band, IN: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/williambarrnotredame.htm
To me, the democrats (just like Rachel Maddow’s statement cited by Mr. Turley) always sound like the dialogue of an old gangster movie where the police bring in the thug (who they believe perpetarted the crime – and actually did) for questioning and the thug just keeps cockily saying to the police …”you’ve got nothing on me, copper”.
“On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow assured her viewers that “no major thing from the dossier has been conclusively disproven.”
This is literally the same statement Professor Turley and conservatives make to justify using the Hunter Biden laptop contents as primary evidence to justify countless news (not opinion) articles. If you, Professor Turley, believe Maddow’s thinking here is backwards – as I do – how can you justify repeatedly citing to unverified Hunter Biden laptop contents as primary evidence of anything?
(And no – no outlet has actually verified all of the contents of the laptop.)
Professor Turley and conservatives make to justify using the Hunter Biden laptop contents
The FBI has had the hard drive for years. They have not used the contents to seek warrants.
Very different from using the Steel Dossier AS EVIDENCE seeking a secret warrant to spy on US Citizens. The FBI knowing they were unable to corroborate any of the information.
“. . . no outlet has actually verified *all* of the contents of the laptop.”
So if you don’t know everything, you can’t know anything.
Nice premise (yet again), Sophist.
Turley has gone from paid pundit to outright liar: 1. calls Trump’s campaign coordinating with Russian hackers a “great hoax” and “political hit job”–both lies. A REPUBLICAN Senate Committee investigation proved that Trump’s campaign did plot with Russian hackers to smear Hillary Clinton in enough districts in key swing states, where support for her was soft enough that such lies could make a difference. The Russians were provided insider polling information gathered by Trump’s campaign. The investigation into Trump came as a result of George Papadopolous bragging to an Australlian journalist that Hillary’s emails had been hacked and would be released–which they were–via WikiLeaks. THAT’S how the FBI came to investigate the pig–Hillary Clinton didn’t direct it. Durham cricitized the FBI for informing Hillary about this but not Trump. That’s because she was the VICTIM–Trump was the suspect. And the information about Trump’s inter-relations with Russians didn’t come out until after the election. This is just one example of the spin Durham put on the facts. The “Steele Dossier”, started by a Republican opponent ofTrump, was NOT the reason for the FBI investigating him.
2. However, the bigger lie, and one which actually makes me feel sorry for Turley, is the claim that it “derailed an American presidency”. That’s pure fantasy. Trump was predicted to lose in both 2016 and 2020–not because of collusion with Russian hackers–but because most Americans (and, most of the world, for that matter) find Trump to be obnoxious. He is a flashy, braggadocious liar–a womanizer, serial bankrupter of businesses, failure at multiple business ventures, sued thousands of times for not paying valid debts, who burnished a false reputation as a “master dealmaker” and self-made boy-wonder genius. In fact, he was supported by his Daddy well into his forties, because he is NOT a good businessman. Daddy bankrolled Donald, and got him started–he didn’t do it on his own. After Daddy got dementia and lost control of his monetary matters, the bankruptcies started. Trump is a draft-dodger who escaped military service by faking bone spurs (which never kept him off the golf course) and he has called our military heroes “suckers” and “losers”. He attacked John McCain, a true American hero. He has no political experience. He lives in a narcissist’s fantasy world in which he is charming and can make amazing deals all due to his charisma and talent–all nonsense. The disasterous deal he made with the Talliban is just one example–he drew down our troops from 14,000 to 2,500 and let loose 5,000 Taliban from prison, all without consulting our Afghan alllies or involving them in negotiations. It was believed that they could hold off the Taliban until Americans and our allies could get out–but the Afghanis were despirited. The Taliban quickly took over. The withdrawal was a disaster–all because Trump is a poor negotiator. He didn’t even arrange for an air or land base.
More important to his loss in 2020 is his utter failure of leadership. Beginning with money matters, the only legislative achievement in 4 years’ time was a tax break that mostly benefitted the very wealthy. In fact, only 17% of the breaks benefitted people making less than $75K a year, which is most Americans. That tax cut, plus reckless spending accounts for 25% of our national debt that rose to record levels while he was in office. He botched the pandemic–which was a true test of leadership–how to handle a serious crisis. Trump flopped badly. Instead of llistening to and supporting scientists, he hogged news conferences, attacked the Chinese, accused them of intentionally releasing the virus, without evidence, and downplayed the seriousness of the situation, all while pushing fake cures like Hydroxychloroquine. The country had to mostly shut down for 2 years–kids out of school, businesses and restaurants closed, vacations cancelled–a great part of which was unnecessary. Unemployment rose to 10% and the successful economy he inherited from Barak Obama went to hell. He also started a trade war with China when he couldn’t bully them–the tariffs he imposed were simply passed on to American consumers, and this resulted in shortages of consumer goods and computer chips plus higher prices. Trump set a record for being impeached twice.
After America voted him out, he refused to accept our choice. Because he was predicted to lose, he began the Big Lie, claiming, even before the election, that the “only way” he could lose would be if the election is “rigged”. He knew, even on election day, that he lost, but took a victory lap in the wee hours of the next morning. Then, the “Stop the Steal” tours started, culminating with the attempted insurrection that Trump started and allowed to continue for over 3 hours, while Pence’s life was put in danger. Trump reveled in his power to get his fans to do his bidding. He refused to attend Biden’s inauguration, and hasn’t stopped lying ever since. People who broke into the Capitol, defaced property, attacked police officers and those who signed false election papers have been, or will be, criminally charged. Many have been convicted, and will now have a criminal record. Trump did this, and it’s a disgrace.
Turley’s use of his credentials to re-write history by claiming that Trump’s “presidency” was “derailed” by the FBI colluding with Hillary Clinton and mainstream media to create a “Russian hoax” is beneath him. It’s just not true. Turley DOES know better.
Nailed it Gigi. But as you know, facts don’t matter on Turley’s blog. Turley practice of pretzel twisting has become the norm. And the cult eats it up.
Thank you, FW. Maybe, as you said in another post, Fox is cutting costs, and Turley is upping his game to keep the paychecks coming.
Gigi, are you related to Tokyo Rose?
Gigi – no one “proved” any of the things you claimed.
In fact all have ultimately been DISPROVED.
That is litterally the evidence in the Durham report – that ALL your claims are garbage.
Eight Takeaways From the Durham Report
Battle of Denial
Darren, speaking of denial. How is it that Bug’s posts are still being censored? Are ‘violations’ of the civility policy permanent? Nothing he has posted approaches what others get away with on the blog. That would seem to be inconsistent with the ideals of a self proclaimed free speech absolutist.
Darren’s job is to keep it one sided, their side.
Layoff Pal, Daren keeps this site working – and does a damn good job of it considering the number of Hits it takes and comments that are made.
The if everyone did it, then no one did defense is hardly limit it to Washington DC. It is a feature of all government. I worked for a state government whenever a decision needed to be made, the meeting had to include at least 10 people if they all said yes, and it was wrong, no one was responsible.
FBI Manipulated Data To Make Domestic Terrorism Appear Worse
Q: What was the (a) speed and (b) rationale in opening Crossfire Hurricane?
(a) Breakneck speed unlike anything the US Govt ever does
(b) do to Trump what Trump did to Hillary: humiliate
It really is consistent with all things Clinton Inc. They are vindictive, immoral, craven, power hungry white trash who resorted to pummeling women whom Bill raped, stealing White House furniture to make believe they were royalty, and lie at every instance as recalled in Bill’s notorious, “I did not have sex with that woman”.
The reason why the FBI adopted the Clinton Plan was obvious: they feared Trump would take away their sphere of influence, and Hillary hung over Comey’s head, “you owe me”. As a matter of facts, Durham used the phrase “Clinton Plan” 65 times.
The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane
As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately.22 Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.
The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii) collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no informationabout Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.
Durham Report, page 9
On page 295, Durham notes that it was a “sensible step” to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary investigation given the hack and release of emails from the DNC server combined with the information that “‘Mr[.] Papadopoulos … suggested [to two Australian diplomats that] the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process [of Trump winning the election] with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama).’ … The Australian diplomats would later inform the FBI, and subsequently the Office, that the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five information in late-July was the public release by WikiLeaks (on July 22, 2016) of email communications that had been hacked from the DNC servers.”
The FBI kept the investigation quiet prior to the election, so it’s pretty strange that you think they were trying to humiliate Trump rather than investigate Russia’s attempt to influence the election.
“Preliminary” would involve interviews with principles….which they did not do. Its all explained in the balence of the report you refuse to acknowledge. The FBI also refused to inquire with in its own office as to any evidence that would support anything past a preliminary investigation.
It also ignores all the Deep State mechanization to get Popadoupolis to London, to that bar. A US spy, Halper was already spying on the Trump campaign. A violation of a host of constitutional protections.
Read the report, and you won’t be manipulated by the paid trolls, because once again, as in above, trolls lie. Thats all they do, like Commies, they lie to push their ideologies
In implementing these standards, the FBI could have taken one or more of the following sensible steps:
• Under the least intrusive standard, rather than opening an investigation with a broad scope (“to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia”), the FBI should have focused, at least at the beginning, on Papadopoulos, the alleged source of the information from Australia. On the other hand, the Paragraph Five information was not only connected to Papadopoulos, but also to the campaign as an alleged recipient of “some kind of suggestion from Russia.”
• Under the FBI’s guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation. FBI investigations opened as preliminary investigations, short offull investigations, include time limits and a narrower range of authorized techniques to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary intrusion. If necessary and appropriate, a lower level of investigative activity may be escalated under the guidelines by converting to a full investigation with supervisory approval.
• In the subsequent investigation of Page under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella, the FBI could have used additional, less intrusive techniques before seeking authority to conduct electronic surveillance under FISA. The paucity of information collected onkey aspects of Page’s activities would support such an approach.
read the Durham Report. It is a simple and quick read
Amazing is it not how many times we can point out what was actually written in the Durham report, and yet our leftist friends continue to try to spin, Spin, SPIN by way of omitting those facts, or resorting to misinformation and disinformation or out right lies.
Fortunately for us, with some simple reading, use of our critical thinking skills we can see through them and their spin.
Seems to me they are desperate to spin this away as MSM is attempting too, when we can all see this is as big as if not bigger than Watergate.
Matt Taibbi pointed that out.
You’re confirming what I said: he concluded that it would be a sensible step to open an preliminary investigation due to the hack and release of the emails in combination with the info from the Australians about Papadopoulos. You’ve undermined your own claim about the “rationale.”
he concluded that it would be a sensible step to open an preliminary investigation
Crossfire Hurricane was not a preliminary investigation. You keep lying
I didn’t lie. I didn’t claim that it was a preliminary investigation, and I know that it wasn’t. I was pointing out Durham’s rationale for why an investigation was opened. Work on your reading comprehension. Learn to follow a threaded exchange.
That you all the Durham report a “simple and quick read” says all you need to know. Meaning you didn’t really read it for comprehension. Just skimmed over the “boring” parts and went to the parts that only support your preconceived notions.
Most here can’t read that many pages and be “informed”. They need the abbreviated version given to them by those who know who the gullible ones are.
Meaning you didn’t really read it for comprehension.
How would you know? You have yet to challenge anything Estovir has posted today. You are the least qualified individual to challenge any persons reading comprehension.
“On page 295, Durham notes that it was a “sensible step” to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary investigation”
ATS, it would have made more sense to close the investigation after two weeks and focus on Hillary.
You don’t know how to read.
I used to read the posts by Svelaz, Anonymous, Denis McIntyre and Gigi just to try to give a fair hearing to their opinions but once I asked them if they were in favor of pornography in Junior high schools and they refused to answer my question I just scroll past their posts. On second thought, Svelaz did give me an answer. He said that because kids could see porn on the internet it was all right if it was available in schools. As to the others, they continue to refuse to give their position on porn in schools. Just ask yourself, what kind of person is in favor of presenting nudity and oral sex to your children? How far away is a person who is willing to show sexual acts to children from performing sexual acts with children? Not far.
Think, I finally stopped reading Svelaz because a) you can’t argue with someone who says up is down and day is night, b) he is just a paid hack and c) why waste an hour a day reading leftist lies from some idiot that comments 200 times for every issue.
Hullbobby, you’re just upset that there are other points of view other than your own. There are always going to be a counter argument to anything. That you can’t figure that out on your says a lot about deep your ignorance goes.
“How far away is a person who is willing to show sexual acts to children from performing sexual acts with children? Not far.”
Creepy groomers trying to normalize pedophilia!
TiT, you’re a liar.
“On second thought, Svelaz did give me an answer. He said that because kids could see porn on the internet it was all right if it was available in schools.”
That is not what I said and lying about it doesn’t make your argument any better. It’s obvious you make a lot of BS claims about others.
You can’t make distinctions between literature and pornography. Nobody is in favor of pornography in schools. What you deem as pornography is NOT pornography. There are literary works that have explicit content that is NOT pornography. Kids today see far worse outside of school than what they have in school libraries. THAT is the point. When you have to resort to lying about what other said all you do is show us the level of ignorance that you live by.
You are clearly obsessed with the issue more than others and it leaves one to wonder if you are just a pervert who is fascinated on the idea that pornography is rampant in schools.
Using ONE extreme example to cast a wide net on everything else is all you have. High school kids and even 7th and 8th graders know about the taboos about sexuality, homosexuality, and now the existence of transgendered individuals. Kids know more than you realize and it’s not because they learned it in school. They literally get it from the internet. The point is they have access to it and all it takes is one friend suggesting they look something up. it’s not the schools that are the big problem. Your didn’t think OTHER kids are suggesting things to their friends about things THEY have seen on the internet without their parents knowledge? You must really be that naive.
By your own logic the Catholic priests and Christian pastors should always be seen as possible pedophiles. Always.
Nobody is in favor of pornography in schools
Now you are claiming drawing of 10 year olds giving each other BJ’s, ART?
5 years ago that would have gotten you on the pedophile watch list. Hopefully it still did, You are a dangerous sicko.
Iowan2, no. NOBODY is drawing 10 year olds giving each other BJ’s. You are the one who is gullible enough to buy that BS because extremists rely on you to stupidly believe it without questioning it. It seems you believe anything you/‘’re being told like a five year old who believes anything anyone of authority tells them is true. Use those critical thinking skills you keep saying everyone needs to use.
As always, you go on and on about a subject you have never studied.
“Just ask yourself, what kind of person is in favor of presenting nudity and oral sex to your children? How far away is a person who is willing to show sexual acts to children from performing sexual acts with children? Not far.”
I’d tweak that a little–there are some people, who lived in the 70s mainly, who were into openness with children about sex. Europeans are more open to it as well. And so you may have some people who have just gone a little too far. Are there those who are peds in training–you betcha.
I scroll by. Not worth my time to listen to the same lies they spew on CNN.
These are Chinese Communist Party bots.