Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

    Article here: What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

    Folks, this is a really good read with excellent analysis. The core premise is along these lines (from the article):

    “The bottom’s gonna fall out tomorrow,” and it never does. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Heads are gonna roll tomorrow,” and they never do. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Full operation exposed, details tomorrow morning,” whatever. Never happens.
    The article then goes on to offer some fascinating tidbits that support the argument that it might actually be different this time. An example:

    The fact that this was kept secret so long, even in the face of this admission slipping out and remaining unnoticed, suggests that the Durham investigation – and maybe Huber’s too – is doing exactly what effective prosecutors do: keeping grand jury proceedings secret, applying pressure to witnesses to sing, maybe offering deals for lighter prosecution and sentence recommendations if they implicate higher-ups, and going for convictions by trial juries, not in the court of public opinion.

    The very same James A. Baker, interestingly enough, is anticipating release of the Horowitz report, and conceding that the IG will find “mistakes.”

  • powbob01
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
    Article here: What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

    Folks, this is a really good read with excellent analysis. The core premise is along these lines (from the article):



    The article then goes on to offer some fascinating tidbits that support the argument that it might actually be different this time. An example:
    The phrase excellent analysis and The American Thinker should never be part of the same thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoot Owl
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    According to me, hence the "IMO".
    What?!
    No "H"?



    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Alndln3 View Post

    According to who? Trump?
    According to me, hence the "IMO".

    Leave a comment:


  • Zipperhead
    replied
    The more threads EL starts on this subject, the more likely Hillary will be nailed for Seth Rich.

    Zip

    Leave a comment:


  • Alndln3
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    The real "Russiagate" is just ramping up, IMO.

    Watch and learn how adults investigate a real crime.
    According to who? Trump?

    Leave a comment:


  • redEL34
    replied
    Originally posted by Hoot Owl View Post
    I need to know more. Your posts lack detail, IMO.
    Didn`t know I was a trusted news source. I`ll keep that in mind next time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoot Owl
    replied
    Originally posted by redEL34 View Post

    Zero. Just look at how General Flynn is being treated. That`s all you need to know.
    I need to know more. Your posts lack detail, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • redEL34
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
    Article here: What are the odds that the Durham investigation is for real and will bring the bad actors to justice?

    Folks, this is a really good read with excellent analysis. The core premise is along these lines (from the article):



    The article then goes on to offer some fascinating tidbits that support the argument that it might actually be different this time. An example:
    Zero. Just look at how General Flynn is being treated. That`s all you need to know.

    Leave a comment:


  • arcadesonfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post
    That may be true. But I compare it to having a bag of garbage in your car to take to the dump, and in it is an empty bourbon bottle. You get pulled over by a cop and he sees the bottle and arrests you for having an open container in the car.

    It's one of those "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" things. Laws have a reason for existing. And preventing someone from including a bourbon bottle in their garbage bag is not why the open container law exists.

    A guy trying to do a thing that seems to him to be perfectly innocent, and failing at doing it, is not something law enforcement should be wasting their time with. They could always tell the guy that what he was trying to do would have been illegal if he had done it.

    But then, with this situation, are we even sure that what he was trying to do was illegal, or are we straining at technicalities to make it appear illegal?

    If I talk to a person who is a member of a hostile government that it is illegal for me to talk to (what about the first amendment), but I don't know he is a representative of that government, am I doing anything illegal?

    It is quite muddy if you want to get steeped in technical law interpretations, yet oddly clear if you take a reasonable "real world" approach to it. And that suggests it's probably not worth pursuing legally.
    Does “probably not worth pursuing legally” mean “illegal”?

    Do you really want to equate numerous attempts to coordinate with an adversarial foreign power to win an election (plus lying and trying to cover up the attempt) while having knowledge that the foreign power was indeed working to thwart your opponents to throwing an empty bottle of booze in the car?*

    Do you notice the same pattern I notice in which I often answer your questions but you avoid my questions and instead turn around with long posts that elude my pointed questions?

    Yes. The law is muddy, and that’s why these analogies are often inapplicable.

    Here's an analogy for ya: You know a guy is going around murdering people in your neighborhood. The guy offers to give your family a million bucks. Do you take the money and keep quiet? Or do you reject the money and go to the police?........ If I tried to use that to discuss the campaign and Russian interference, you and I would both easily see the gigantic differences between that situation and the campaign/Russia situation.
    Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-15-2019, 01:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post

    If I understand correctly, attempting to purchase drugs is a crime whether the drugs were purchased or not.
    That may be true. But I compare it to having a bag of garbage in your car to take to the dump, and in it is an empty bourbon bottle. You get pulled over by a cop and he sees the bottle and arrests you for having an open container in the car.

    It's one of those "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" things. Laws have a reason for existing. And preventing someone from including a bourbon bottle in their garbage bag is not why the open container law exists.

    A guy trying to do a thing that seems to him to be perfectly innocent, and failing at doing it, is not something law enforcement should be wasting their time with. They could always tell the guy that what he was trying to do would have been illegal if he had done it.

    But then, with this situation, are we even sure that what he was trying to do was illegal, or are we straining at technicalities to make it appear illegal?

    If I talk to a person who is a member of a hostile government that it is illegal for me to talk to (what about the first amendment), but I don't know he is a representative of that government, am I doing anything illegal?

    It is quite muddy if you want to get steeped in technical law interpretations, yet oddly clear if you take a reasonable "real world" approach to it. And that suggests it's probably not worth pursuing legally.

    Leave a comment:


  • bildo
    replied
    Got bad news for all. The players on the Hill are all playing the American people. Nothing will come of any of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • arcadesonfire
    replied
    Trump did recently call the Mueller report “the Bible.” It might be worth a read.

    Last edited by arcadesonfire; 05-15-2019, 01:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Hicks
    replied
    Originally posted by Easy Listener View Post

    You are liteally STILL arguing the Mueller investigation. You should send your resume to CNN. They are looking for people just like you!
    It's more than a little bit funny how quickly the attitude change from Trump supporters.

    before the release of the report when all we had was the 4-page summary and press conference by the Attorney General, folks on the right were proclaiming the Mueller report to be complete exoneration.

    and once we got the release of even the unredacted portions of that report all of a sudden That Tune has changed!

    Surprise!

    Leave a comment:


  • Easy Listener
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

    The facts of the numbers of indictments convictions and guilty pleas produced as a result of the Mueller investigation speak for themselves.

    same with Watergate, same with Iran Contra.

    as you can see I am proposing a quantifiable standard for measurement as opposed then everybody having their own varying opinions on the matter.

    let's take the Benghazi investigations as an example. No indictments no convictions no guilty pleas.

    successful or unsuccessful? How you answer this simple question will reveal perhaps more than you are willing to.

    so the safest thing would be to withdraw and not answer the question.
    😀
    You are literally STILL arguing the Mueller investigation. You should send your resume to CNN. They are looking for people just like you!
    Last edited by Easy Listener; 05-15-2019, 01:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X