Durham loses again in court, but trial airs FBI flaws

Durham can't write legislation, the law. We need a full congressional investigation into how the law was skirted by these officials and how to prevent it from happening again.

You a legitimate congressional investigation for a legislative purpose. The Republicans didn't have the benefit of the investigation during those two years did they?

 

Do rightists ever get tired of being wrong all the damn time?

Asking for a friend.

 

This is what happens when you try to put a square peg in a round hole legally. Trump was so desperate for something, this is now the ultimate result.

 

How is the system rigged? The prosecution presented evidence to a group of 12 jurors, and the defense presented their evidence to the same 12 jurors. The jury deliberated and came up with an acquittal because of reasonable doubt.

the only difference with your comment and that of a person found guilty of murder, the person found guilty of murder says the same thing.

 

No discovery whatsoever by a court of law. No guilty verdict and not even the charges that were being presented match that nonwhimsicial argument.

 

He is a lawyer, which means he can argue and use logic to indict and convict a ham sandwich if he wanted to. The problem is evidenced by a jury of peers. If the jury finds no sufficient evidence, then under the law they must acquit. Or are you arguing that it should be guilty until proven innocent?

 

If you are never taken to court in the first place that is where the rigging begins. Using the justice system as a political weapon. That used to be the thing of banana dictatorships but evidently times they are a changing.

 

The extent to which the truth was - and is being - exposed, despite all the whining, denial, and victim-card flailing - is the important thing.

The weird worshipers's revulsion when confronted by the facts is blatant.

​

 

No. The data given to the FBI was not fraudulent. Your just wrong. Thats the whole point. It WAS corroborated by Mueller. He didn't prosecute because he could not PROVE that the data given to the russians by the Trump campaign was used in their disinformation campaign. Mueller understands that in a court of law he has to prove that the actual data given to them by the Trump campaign was actually used, and that it wasn't from another/outside source. But one thing he did prove, was that the Trump campaign DID give thier polling data to the Russians, which is something that the right just keeps trying to gloss over

 

Swamp juries in a company town aren’t even embarrassed to sound stupid:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...nn-there-are-bigger-things-than-lying-to-fbi/
A juror in the trial of former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann told the media after he was unanimously acquitted Tuesday that she did not think the case should have been prosecuted because lying to the FBI was not a big deal.

So lying to the liars is no big deal - a swamp version of defunding the laws you don’t like.

 

Your absolutely 100% wrong. Thats what this trial was about. And Durham pled his case to the court, and Danchenko never even took the stand. Durham lost this trial without the defense ever presenting one witness. Think about that for 10 seconds. Durham pled his case to the court, Denchenko didn’t testify, and his legal team didn't call one witness, and the case was lost by Durham.

That shows that it was not only a weak case, they lost it on the merits of their own arguments. It’s ridiculously laughable at this point. Durhams point lost even when their was no counterpoint. FFS man

 

We've long known that campaign data was given, we also know said data is immaterial and in fact practically useless to the Russians. And he couldn't prove it, because there's no evidence of the 'data being used in their disinformation campaign'.

That's the whole point, there was and will never be evidence of Russian collusion, yet the investigation had continued until 2020. It doesn't matter what a jury says, the statements made in public were damning. We were lied to, materially at that during the investigation. They'll just never be punished for it. "Mistakes were made" And the same mistakes can continue to be made, over and over again.

 

It is a crime to solicit foreign help in a US election. That was the crime. And like I said, Mueller had no way of showing that the actual data Manafort gave him was what they used in the disinformation campaign. Courts have some pretty clear rules on what can be used to convict someone.

But I do have one honest question for you….Why would the Trump campaign share their polling data with the Russians ? What would the russians need with US polling data since they cannot participate in US elections ? It’s a serious question.

 

He is still charged with his special prosecutor tag. But yes, Garland needs to end it now that this case is done. I think he allowed it to continue because he didn't want to look political by discharging him before this one went to court

 

It's a red herring question. Who knows what they did with it, but since in your own words "they cannot participate in US elections", it was effectively immaterial. It's not as though the facebook posts for example were limited to the certain areas/districts that the data showed. On the contrary, facebook is an open space much like twitter is.

Anyway, the real moral of this story is that it's okay to lie to the FBI, provided that the FBI can use your lie for its own investigative purposes.

 

Your friend have fingers? Tell him windows has voice assist for folks that can't type!

 

Devastating in what way? What political scheme?

Why don't the righties on this forum ever back up their claims with links to proof? I have long suspected that it's because you have none.

I turn to Trump because it is relevant to this thread. It was Trump's DOJ that started this investigation, at Trump's insistence, and after more than three years, virtually zero crimes were found. You really are parroting Trump, whining about a non-existent conspiracy and pointing his diminutive fingers at everyone else.

 

Now I remember why you were on my Ignore list. You are just too far from reality for any kind of reasonable debates.
I hope the kool-aid was tasty.

 

What do you propose?

 

Why is it “useless” to the russians.

HUH ? The Russians absolutely meddled in the 2016 campaign. Thats been well documents and Mueller proved it!

This case was settled when Mueller said they meddled in the election in his final report, but that since he could not prove that the specific polling data that Manafort gave them was used, he could not prosecute. But dont conflate this trial with anything Mueller. This was 100% Trump. HE appointed Durham to keep the lie alive, and thats exactly what Durham is doing here. And it so bad that he put a man on trial and lost that trial without the defendant saying a word, or his lawyers even calling one witness. Think about how bad you have to be to give your side of the argument to the court, and the accused says literally nothing, is defense team says literally nothing, and you still loose

 

Very basically, the jury's biggest problem is the random selection and NONE of them are versed in the law at all. Hence needing instructions, and at that what we see in dramas is that they often call the judge back for further instruction. Yeah, not feeling confident in that system at all. Juries should be like judges: Appointed, and perhaps in 10-20 year cycles so as to maintain fresh minds, etc but now they're experienced and wise.

Either that or just leave it to a judge. But the idea of our peers, noble in theory is actually horrendous in practice when they judge erroneously.

 

If you are never taken to court, then there is not enough evidence to take you to court. Or you can plead guilty to the charges to avoid court, except for sentencing. Either way, it is not rigged.

 

But here in the real world it is obvious that the justice system is being used as a political cudgel

 

OMFG….That is EXACTLY what Durham has been doing. WTF are you on about here ?

Team Trump absolutely lost here. You had a SP appointed who has worked for over 2 years, and lost in court this week with the defense never presenting single witness, or even ANY defense. His case was so bad the defense didnt have to say a word and still won !!!!

 

It has rarely been used as a political weapon. However, in this case, and most of the other cases involving politicians, Democrats or Republicans including DJT, it is not. Your argument is simply a cop out of lazy thinking, not wanting to deal with the reality of what our judicial system really is.