Posts: 16,108
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59521
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 12:17 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I think this will be bigger than many believe. Many voted against Trump because of this lie. Trump is going to pick up more support and voters on the left are going to lose trust in their party of lies.
No they didn't. I don't know of a single person who voted against Trump in 2016 or 2020 because they believed in the Russian collusion thing. It may have been a factor in their decision making, but it absolutely was not the thing that turned them away from Trump. The misogyny, sexual assault allegations, fraud claims, racism, conspiracy theory peddling, etc., etc., all did a fine job of pushing the majority of voters away in 2016, and then his performance in office pushed even more away in 2020.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 28,002
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121980
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 01:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No they didn't. I don't know of a single person who voted against Trump in 2016 or 2020 because they believed in the Russian collusion thing. It may have been a factor in their decision making, but it absolutely was not the thing that turned them away from Trump. The misogyny, sexual assault allegations, fraud claims, racism, conspiracy theory peddling, etc., etc., all did a fine job of pushing the majority of voters away in 2016, and then his performance in office pushed even more away in 2020.
Hell, I was going to vote for Turmp but if he didn't collude with Russia that means he is playing fair and we need someone who isn't afraid to meet those dastardly democrats on their own turf and cheat to beat 'em, because we know they're cheating even more. Nice guys who play fair don't get it done, sorry Donnie.
Posts: 38,573
Threads: 1,701
Reputation:
55488
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
The Selective Memory News Corp is back at it...
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 11,840
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 03:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Selective Memory News Corp is back at it...
Yes, systematic inversion and projection.
Platforming Trump's Big Lie had tremendous consequences for the news organization that forbid its commentators to follow the Dominion suit.
But "Big Lie" is projected back onto the left now, apparently by a report which led to failed prosecutions and offers recommendations already
recommended.
To Refresh people's memories, what Hannity has been saying all along, echoing Trump, was that the Russia investigation was a "witch hunt"
based on a "lie," neglecting to mention that the "lie" which predicated the investigation was a warning from an ally and the numerous contacts between Trump people and Russian spies. And neglecting to mention that it found witches, which were later pardoned by Trump. That the Mueller Report found this evidence did meet the threshold for charging Trump with collusion does not mean it was or was based on a lie. It was an investigation which apparently stayed close to the facts and the law, which how failure to meet the threshold was determined.
My liberal friends who think the Durham Report was a failure may be missing the point. What it actually says doesn't matter, as MAGA voters will be following Hannity, not reading the Report and not contextualizing it with Barr and Durham's behavior. (E.g., announcing that Durham had opened a criminal investigation has been opened--while neglecting to specify it was into Trump's activities, not Obama's or the FBI's.) It has almost the same political effect as a Report actually finding what Trump and Hannity were looking for.
And Hannity says the Report "proves everything we've been saying"; while the Big Lie goes to the MSM media, which has treated the Russia
investigation with much greater care and accuracy from the beginning. Too soon to say for sure, but Fox may be on its way to recovering
from the Dominion fiasco. (Was everything Hannity said about election fraud true as well? lol)
Posts: 11,840
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 08:11 AM)pally Wrote: What I found interesting is that he recommended no changes in how the FBI does business. That just seems odd considering his conclusion is the investigations should have never happened in the first place. He spent an awful long time and spent a whole lot of money coming up with a conclusion that he apparently has had for some time. The IG’s report seems on face value more substantive
No changes, because these had already been recommended and implemented, starting in 2019, thanks to the IG report you mention.
The explicit GOAL of the Durham investigation, as stated on the pages 2-3 of the Durham Report, was to investigate CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
To meet the standards set by Trump and the RWM, that would mean something like evidence that Obama spied on Trump, or
that the FBI explicitly planned to take Trump down--something that would e.g., decisively refute charges that the FBI had swung the election
to Trump by publicly re-opening the case into Hillary's emails.
Three people were eventually recommended for criminal prosecution. Two of these, Igor Danchenko and Michael Sussman,
were acquitted by federal juries. The other, Kevin Clinesmith, got a year probation for altering an email used to
extend a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Though to be fair, that info was already uncovered by the IG in 2019, so
maybe not an "accomplishment" of the Durham Report.
One wonders why sanctioning the prosecution of such unwinnable cases doesn't count as evidence of special counsel "bias," especially when Durham's charge against the FBI of weak factual predication is being used to "prove" FBI bias and cites the obligation not waste taxpayer money and government time on weakly grounded cases.
So this falls rather short of the Mueller Report, which got 6 convictions, and pointedly refused to exonerate Trump
of obstruction charges, but was declared a "dud" in the RWM--with considerable help from Trump's AG.
The Mueller Report by the way, is obliquely honored in the Durham Report by frequent citation as precedent and model.
Also, the Report does seem to agree that the FBI had evidence of potential collusion between Russian and the Trump CAMPAIGN, and was and was obligated to look into it, but concludes that evidence did not warrant launching an investigation into Trump specifically (though it certainly warranted investigation into others of his entourage).
Posts: 10,327
Threads: 538
Reputation:
50206
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 01:09 PM)pally Wrote: I seriously doubt this report which contradicts both the IG's report and Mueller's report will suddenly convince people to support Trump. Trump has more than enough baggage that isn't going away with a report from a partisan political appointee
Actually that is BS Pally and you are smart enough to know it. Please tell s exactly why Durham is a partisan political appointee, please don't use the left's narrative given to the fake news outlets.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
Posts: 10,327
Threads: 538
Reputation:
50206
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 04:43 PM)Dill Wrote: No changes, because these had already been recommended and implemented, starting in 2019, thanks to the IG report you mention.
The explicit GOAL of the Durham investigation, as stated on the pages 2-3 of the Durham Report, was to investigate CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
To meet the standards set by Trump and the RWM, that would mean something like evidence that Obama spied on Trump, or
that the FBI explicitly planned to take Trump down--something that would e.g., decisively refute charges that the FBI had swung the election
to Trump by publicly re-opening the case into Hillary's emails.
Three people were eventually recommended for criminal prosecution. Two of these, Igor Danchenko and Michael Sussman,
were acquitted by federal juries. The other, Kevin Klinesmith, got a year probation for altering an email used to
extend a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Though to be fair, that info was already uncovered by the IG in 2019, so
maybe not an "accomplishment" of the Durham Report.
One wonders why sanctioning the prosecution of such unwinnable cases doesn't count as evidence of special counsel "bias," especially when Durham's charge against the FBI of weak factual predication is being used to "prove" FBI bias and cites the obligation not waste taxpayer money and government time on weakly grounded cases.
So this falls rather short of the Mueller Report, which got 6 convictions, and pointedly refused to exonerate Trump
of obstruction charges, but was declared a "dud" in the RWM--with considerable help from Trump's AG.
The Mueller Report by the way, is obliquely honored in the Durham Report by frequent citation as precedent and model.
Also, the Report does seem to agree that the FBI had evidence of potential collusion between Russian and the Trump CAMPAIGN, and was and was obligated to look into it, but concludes that evidence did not warrant launching an investigation into Trump specifically (though it certainly warranted investigation into others of his entourage).
This is a key finding. To put it simply, no excuse to launch an investigation. Trump was impeached and attacked for years by the liberal media for Russian Collusion, yet once again Trump proven correct, it was a witch by the FBI and the DOJ. Put the shoe on the other foot liberals, what if happened to Biden or the next person the Democrats choose to run the Democratic party. The BS started months prior to the 2016 election and used the lies and disinformation to torch Trump. The liberal medal led the charges.
This is wrong on so many fronts. Trump was correct, the election media coverage allowed for many to vote against him.
Also, the Report does seem to agree that the FBI had evidence of potential collusion between Russian and the Trump CAMPAIGN, and was and was obligated to look into it, but concludes that evidence did not warrant launching an investigation into Trump specifically (though it certainly warranted investigation into others of his entourage).
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
Posts: 811
Threads: 27
Reputation:
3085
Joined: Feb 2022
Location: Milton's Prospect Hill Tavern
Mood:
Yeah, this report that was supposed to be the smoking gun for Trump's grievances turned out to be a big waste of taxpayers' money. The only conviction was a low-level misdemeanor that got an FBI lawyer caught up for altering an email.
Manafort, Stone, and Flynn are still convicted felons, but still they're all fall guys for the real criminal Benedict Donald "the Con" Trump
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 06:47 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Yeah, this report that was supposed to be the smoking gun for Trump's grievances turned out to be a big waste of taxpayers' money. The only conviction was a low-level misdemeanor that got an FBI lawyer caught up for altering an email.
Manafort, Stone, and Flynn are still convicted felons, but still they're all fall guys for the real criminal Benedict Donald "the Con" Trump
I think you're massively downplaying the significance of this. Criminal charges are not required for this to be an egregious abuse of federal law enforcement power. Like I said earlier, if they'll pull this kind of crap with a powerful person like Trump just imagine what they're comfortable with doing to the average citizen. Trump got impeached over this and it turned out to be complete garbage. That doesn't disturb you? Sincerely, the level of partisanship that enables excusing this is horrifying.
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 01:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And? The only difference between what I said and they said was that they were more "the sky is falling" about it and they said Durham found no collusion, which isn't something Durham investigated or wrote about. Durham said that the FBI did not have enough to go on to open a full investigation on the Trump campaign at the time. He does not make conclusions about the overall collusion claims because he did not investigate those. That wasn't in his scope.
I always enjoy people that rail against MSM who hold it up as evidence when it confirms their biases. I like to read the source documents instead of relying on others to tell me what is in there.
Interesting that your only takeaway from that 10 minute video was Brie and Robby's opinion that Durham found no collusion between Trump and Russia. You must've skipped the last nine minutes of the video which pretty much reports exactly what was in the Executive Summary of the Durham Report.
This isn't "just a whimper."
I also find it interesting the people who dismisses someones opinion because they link a "one-sided opinion piece" while just a few posts earlier quote a one-sided opinion piece in the original post.
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 04:43 PM)Dill Wrote: The explicit GOAL of the Durham investigation, as stated on the pages 2-3 of the Durham Report, was to investigate CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
You must've stopped reading at page 3 because had you read to page 7, you'd have seen the 5 bullet points that specifically state where they focused their investigation.
Posts: 16,108
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59521
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 07:46 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Interesting that your only takeaway from that 10 minute video was Brie and Robby's opinion that Durham found no collusion between Trump and Russia. You must've skipped the last nine minutes of the video which pretty much reports exactly what was in the Executive Summary of the Durham Report.
I didn't really watch much of the video at all. I watched maybe 1-2 minutes of it and stopped because there was no need to watch further. I read the executive summary, I know what it says. I don't need anyone to fill me in on it.
(05-16-2023, 07:46 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: This isn't "just a whimper."
It really is. Pretty much everything of actual note in the report has already been covered by the OIG and addressed and there was no new information.
(05-16-2023, 07:46 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: I also find it interesting the people who dismisses someones opinion because they link a "one-sided opinion piece" while just a few posts earlier quote a one-sided opinion piece in the original post.
I did not quote an opinion piece. I linked a news article and the source document. Now, the post I was dismissive of linked a piece from the opinion section of the Fox News website. So it was a one-sided opinion piece. Do you have enough media literacy to differentiate between a news article and an opinion piece?
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I did not quote an opinion piece. I linked a news article and the source document. Now, the post I was dismissive of linked a piece from the opinion section of the Fox News website. So it was a one-sided opinion piece. Do you have enough media literacy to differentiate between a news article and an opinion piece?
Actually, what is obvious is that you do not have enough media literacy to know when an opinion is injected into a news story and fools you into thinking that it is an unbiased news story.
It stopped being a news article and became an opinion piece when the journalist wrote "... that fell far short of the former president's prediction that the "crime of the century" would be uncovered."
That's his opinion. There's no fact there. It was unnecessary and reveals his bias...extra emphasis on the bolded part.
A news story would report and present the facts to you so that you could make up your mind. A news piece would write "A special prosecutor found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of ties between Russian and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence as he concluded a four year probe" since those words are literally in the report.
If he wanted to mention Trumps statement since it is significant, it should be worded more carefully, like....."The Durham Report, which Trump predicted would reveal the crime of the century, found that the FBI rushing into its investigation of ties between Russian and...."
That leaves you the reader to decide if this is indeed the crime of the century. But the writer obviously believes, as do you, that this isn't a big deal or some sort of vindication of Trump, so he can't help but inject that opinion in to his piece.
Admittedly, it is hard to discern opinion when it is presented this way. And quite frankly, opinion is probably always woven into news stories on some level. It is our job to recognize it.
Posts: 16,108
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59521
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 10:13 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Actually, what is obvious is that you do not have enough media literacy to know when an opinion is injected into a news story and fools you into thinking that it is a news story.
It stopped being a news article and became an opinion piece when the journalist wrote "...that fell far short of the former president's prediction that the "crime of the century" would be uncovered."
That's his opinion. There's no fact there. It was unnecessary and reveals his bias...extra emphasis on the bolded part.
A news story would report and present the facts to you so that you could make up your mind. A news piece would write "A special prosecutor found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of ties between Russian and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence as he concluded a four year probe" since those words are literally in the report.
If he wanted to mention Trumps statement since it is significant, it should be worded more carefully, like....."The Durham Report, which Trump predicted would reveal the crime of the century, found that the FBI rushing into its investigation of ties between Russian and...."
That leaves you the reader to decide if this is indeed the crime of the century. But the writer obviously believes, as do you, that this isn't a big deal or some sort of vindication of Trump, so he can't help but inject that opinion in to his piece.
Admittedly, it is hard to discern opinion when it is presented this way. And quite frankly, opinion is probably always woven into news stories on some level. It is our job to recognize it.
I have enough media literacy to know that the line you quoted does not make the piece an opinion piece and is in reality an objective statement.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 10:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have enough media literacy to know that the line you quoted does not make the piece an opinion piece and is in reality an objective statement.
Obviously not.
Posts: 16,108
Threads: 412
Reputation:
59521
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(05-16-2023, 10:25 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Obviously not.
It's called analysis, which rides the line between hard news and opinion and is a staple of modern journalism. Yeah, it's a topic I am familiar with being married to a composition and rhetoric professor.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 10:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's called analysis, which rides the line between hard news and opinion and is a staple of modern journalism. Yeah, it's a topic I am familiar with being married to a composition and rhetoric professor.
Quote:I did not quote an opinion piece. I linked a news article and the source document. Now, the post I was dismissive of linked a piece from the opinion section of the Fox News website. So it was a one-sided opinion piece. Do you have enough media literacy to differentiate between a news article and an opinion piece?
Wait, wait, wait.....you said you linked a news article earlier, now you're saying its a news analysis article? Get your story straight.
(something tells me that you had to call Mrs Belsnickel over to the computer to bail you out of this one, and this was the best she could offer to you)
Further, news analysis articles are often written by experts or people with experience in a certain field. They take hard news and inject their opinions gained from their experience to provide an analysis.
I checked both Eric Tucker and Lyndsay Whitehurst's biographies and they are both college educated in journalism and have worked predominately in journalistic fields their entire lives. Where exactly did they get their expertise, and what exactly is their expertise that allows them to write a news analysis article?
Posts: 2,162
Threads: 79
Reputation:
9488
Joined: Jan 2016
Mood: None
Anyway....we are off on a tangent here. The findings in this report aren't "a whimper." They are significant and concerning. I really couldn't care less if it lived up to Trumps hyperbole or not. I really couldn't care less if it vindicates Trump or not. Frankly, to me, this isn't about Trump. It's about the corruption and incompetence in the DOJ and FBI.
Posts: 11,840
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 05:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This is a key finding. To put it simply, no excuse to launch an investigation. Trump was impeached and attacked for years by the liberal media for Russian Collusion, yet once again Trump proven correct, it was a witch by the FBI and the DOJ. Put the shoe on the other foot liberals, what if happened to Biden or the next person the Democrats choose to run the Democratic party. The BS started months prior to the 2016 election and used the lies and disinformation to torch Trump. The liberal medal led the charges.
This is wrong on so many fronts. Trump was correct, the election media coverage allowed for many to vote against him.
Actually, Trump was not impeached for "Russia collusion."
He was impeached for withholding aid to an ally to coerce that ally to announce an investigation into Biden,
And the second impeachment was for an attempted coup (i.e., by getting Pence to halt certification and throwing
the presidential election to the House) which led to insurgents storming the Capitol building chanting "Hang Pence"
and the death of a rioter while Trump, the commander-in-chief, watched the chaos on television for hours.
And the people who want that guy back in office are the ones now OUTRAGED that Durham has finally revealed
what we learned from the IG in 2019.
Also, if there was enough evidence to begin a preliminary investigation of "some" members of Trump's campaign (and there was), and that
investigation did not not establish that Trump colluded with Russia, that does not make the investigation a "lie." Or a witch hunt.
Remember SIX WITCHES WENT TO PRISON. Only to be pardoned the guy now claiming "crime of the century! Obama spied on
my campaign!  " The guy who begged Russia to intervene in the 2016 election, and then disputed his own FBI and CIA when they did.
The guy you claim was "proven correct."
In the end, Comey announced he was re-opening an investigation into Clinton's emails, and her 5.9 point lead (on 10/28/16) over Trump in Fivethirtyeights poll projection dropped three points in a week, and she lost three battleground states by one point. That's how the deepstate/FBI "torched Trump."
In any case, the shoe has already been on the other foot for quite some time (7 Benghazi hearings, anyone?); we just had another dud finding in the Hunter laptop investigation, which for years now has promised to link Joe to millions from Moscow and China--and was just about to drop some amazing whistleblowers on us. (Say, wasn't there a thread on those amazing whistleblowers recently?)
Posts: 11,840
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(05-16-2023, 07:49 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: You must've stopped reading at page 3 because had you read to page 7, you'd have seen the 5 bullet points that specifically state where they focused their investigation.
??? And those five bullet points disprove that the Durham and Barr were looking for prosecutable, criminal activity?
You frame this as if those bullet points refute their own claim that "the Office structured its work around evidence for possible
use in prosecutions of federal crimes" rather than complete it with more specification of where they are looking.
And they did find criminal activity--one guy who fudged a final FISA application by adding information which had been in
two previous ones. But it sounds like you are hearing this 2019 news for the first time.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
