Nope. It’s a novel legal theory with no precedent and full of holes. This is election interference, political persecution, a Biden campaign strategy, pure and simple.

I've previously acknowledged that a conviction might get overturned on appeal, but it won't be because there's no precedent, nor because you consider it election interference, or political persecution.

There's no evidence of involvement by the Biden campaign. In fact, we know Biden's DOJ chose to drop it.

Is this really "election interference"? Define the term.

If it does get overturned it will be because it’s an unjust and stupid case that will discredit the American justice system for years to come.

The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. Pure coincidence? I guess they couldn’t find anyone who wasn’t a part of Biden’s DOJ?

Yes, it’s election interference, meaning they are doing it to stifle Trump’s chances in the election. They couldn’t find any crimes so they practically invented them.

If it does get overturned it will be because it’s an unjust and stupid case that will discredit the American justice system for years to come. — NOS4A2

Appellate courts overturn convictions for technical reasons, like interpretations of the law, errors by a judge, inadmissability of evidence. They rarely overrule the verdicts of juries.

Yes, it’s election interference, meaning they are doing it to stifle Trump’s chances in the election. — NOS4A2

I asked you to define "election interference", because I suspect you apply a double standard. Were the House investigations of Joe and Hunter also election interference? What about Comey's public discussion of Hillary's email practices? Russia's assistance in 2016? Was Pecker engaging in election interference with his "catch and kill" tactics? How about Trump's numerous frivolous lawsuits about the 2020 election? How about his lies that it was stolen, and attempts to get senior DOJ staff to lie about election fraud? How about Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden?

Do you think this trial cost him votes? If so, won't it be because of the facts that are presented?

Appellate courts overturn convictions for technical reasons, like interpretations of the law, errors by a judge, inadmissability of evidence. They rarely overrule the verdicts of juries.

Harvey Weinstein’s case was just overturned because the judge could not be just.

I asked you to define "election interference", because I suspect you apply a double standard. Were the House investigations of Joe and Hunter also election interference? What about Comey's public discussion of Hillary's email practices? Russia's assistance in 2016? Was Pecker engaging in election interference with his "catch and kill" tactics? How about Trump's numerous frivolous lawsuits about the 2020 election? How about his lies that it was stolen, and attempts to get senior DOJ staff to lie about election fraud?

Do you think this trial cost him votes? If so, won't it be because of the facts that are presented?

It simply means they’re interfering with Trump’s campaign, and thus the election. To use your terms, Biden’s campaign is hoping to win the election with the corrupt Justice system’s assistance, which is not in their mandate.

They are now litigating Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels in this show-trial.

This guy is in the courtroom live-tweeting the testimony:

NYC is all prepped for Criminal Defendant-1's imminent perp walk ...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/07/trump-rikers-jail-eric-adams :up: :up:

Oh but the irony is rich now that Stormy gets to fuck him ("long time") again and actually enjoy it this time! :kiss:

https://www.ft.com/content/9849af2b-7870-4827-818c-61d5895c12bf

Judge Cannon torpedoed the illegitimately appointed Jack Smith’s case indefinitely. After Smith’s team was busted tampering with the evidence, this becomes another blow to the Biden plot to hear the case before the election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/trump-classified-docs-trial-delay-florida-00156680

Harvey Weinstein’s case was just overturned because the judge could not be just. — NOS4A2

That's inaccurate. I will grant that when any conviction is overturned on appeal, it implies "unfairness", but this is based on there having been an error made. In Weinstein's case, testimony was admitted for prior, uncharged sexual asaults. The trial judge had ruled it admissible, deeming it relevant to establish Weinstein's motive (which is a valid basis, in general). It's not admissible if the purpose is to establish the defendant's character - that is prejudicial, and the appeals cout ruled it that way. IOW, the judge made an error. That certainly doesn't imply "the judge could not be just".

It simply means they’re interfering with Trump’s campaign, and thus the election. — NOS4A2

So you're going with a special pleading - keeping Trump off from campaigning is the only thing that constitutes election interference. So none of the items I listed count.

To use your terms, Biden’s campaign is hoping to win the election with the corrupt Justice system’s assistance, which is not in their mandate.

You're uncritically accepting Trump's allegation that Biden is behind it. There's zero evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, we know Biden's DOJ actually chose NOT to prosecute Trump. You know this, and used this fact to blast Bragg's decision to prosecute- so you're trying to have it both ways. If Biden wanted to behave like Trump promises, and prosecute his political opponents, he would have jumped at the opportunity.

will discredit the American justice system for years to come

:lol:

Melodrama.

That's inaccurate. I will grant that when any conviction is overturned on appeal, it implies "unfairness", but this is based on there having been an error made. In Weinstein's case, testimony was admitted for prior, uncharged sexual asaults. The trial judge had ruled it admissible, deeming it relevant to establish Weinstein's motive (which is a valid basis, in general). It's not admissible if the purpose is to establish the defendant's character - that is prejudicial, and the appeals cout ruled it that way. IOW, the judge made an error. That certainly doesn't imply "the judge could not be just".

That’s inaccurate. It was multiple errors. The appeals court described as an “abuse of judicial discretion”, essentially denying him the right to a fair trial. And despite your claim that they rarely overrule the verdicts of juries, I was just giving you an example off the top of my head of them doing so.

So you're going with a special pleading - keeping Trump off from campaigning is the only thing that constitutes election interference. So none of the items I listed count.

No, I was just describing how they were engaging in election interference. Another example would be the Russia hoax. I’m sure you could think of others on your own.

You're uncritically accepting Trump's allegation that Biden is behind it. There's zero evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, we know Biden's DOJ actually chose NOT to prosecute Trump. You know this, and used this fact to blast Bragg's decision to prosecute- so you're trying to have it both ways. If Biden wanted to behave like Trump promises, and prosecute his political opponents, he would have jumped at the opportunity.

You’ve evaded my evidence and tried to pretend I was just accepting claims. The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. His leaving the DOJ to kick-start Bragg’s “zombie case” gives Biden plausible deniability, which is how he gets out of everything. If Biden’s DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, why is Biden’s DOJ prosecuting Trump?

You’ve evaded my evidence and tried to pretend I was just accepting claims. The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. His leaving the DOJ to kick-start Bragg’s “zombie case” gives Biden plausible deniability, which is how he gets out of everything. If Biden’s DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, why is Biden’s DOJ prosecuting Trump? — NOS4A2

You are "connecting dots", as conspiracy theorists like to do. This particular conspiracy theory is prevalent in the MAGA world.

The facts you cite demonstrate that Colangelo had relevant experience with Trump, that the DA would deem valuable in mounting the case. Before being named acting assistant US attorney general, he had worked in the NY Attorney General's office investigating Trump Foundation (successfully showing there to be fraud). So it's both knowledge and personal motivation that are the obvious reasons the DA would want him, and that Colangelo would want to take it on.

If the President had nefariously orchestrated Colangelo's move to prosecute Trump, it would be extremely risky for him politically if this came out. You also conveniently overlook the fact that Biden (through Garland) could have simply allowed the case to proceed, and it would not have their fingerprints on it. But consistent with conspiracy theorists, you ignore the evidence that's inconsistent with your conspiracy theory.

So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence.

Another example would be the Russia hoax. I’m sure you could think of others on your own. — NOS4A2

It's established that Russia engaged in election interference by illegally accessing DNC emails. Wikileaks also engaged in election interference by leaking those emails at strategic times during the campaign. There's also strong evidence Roger Stone was coordinating that activity with Julian Assange.

The Russia Investigation (which was in no way, a hoax) became public AFTER the election, so it can't be considered election interference.

But yes, I can think of others- and I listed some. E.g. Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden. The "catch and kill" conspiracy was election interference (even though aspects of it were legal, it's still interference).

That’s inaccurate. It was multiple errors. The appeals court described as an “abuse of judicial discretion”, essentially denying him the right to a fair trial. — NOS4A2

I admit that I shouldn't have said "an error", since that connotes a single error. Yes, there were multiple errors, all relating to making decisions regarding what evidence was admissible, and an error in the Sandoval ruling. In both cases, judges have a good bit of discretion, but the appeals court ruled that the judge's rulings exceeded reasonable limits of this discretionary power.

And despite your claim that they rarely overrule the verdicts of juries, I was just giving you an example off the top of my head of them doing so.

Wrong. The appellate court didn't rule that the jury got it wrong. It ruled that their verdict may have been influenced by the inadmissible evidence. This is not a revised finding of "not guilty", it's simply negating the trial. Weinstein can be retried, and it's reported that there will indeed be a new trial.

So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence.

Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s.

Taking everything at face value is not evidence either. But the question as to why Bragg pivoted from not prosecuting the zombie case to prosecuting the case remains, and to me it’s no strange wonder that Bragg announced indictments a few months after Colangelo joined his team.

It's established that Russia engaged in election interference by illegally accessing DNC emails. Wikileaks also engaged in election interference by leaking those emails at strategic times during the campaign. There's also strong evidence Roger Stone was coordinating that activity with Julian Assange.

The Russia Investigation (which was in no way, a hoax) became public AFTER the election, so it can't be considered election interference.

But yes, I can think of others- and I listed some. E.g. Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden. The "catch and kill" conspiracy was election interference (even though aspects of it were legal, it's still interference).

Now who is the conspiracy theorist?

Note how you never mentioned the Clinton campaign's solicitation of dirt from Christopher Steele, which was then used in FISA courts to open up surveillance on Trump's campaign, during the campaign. Obama's DOJ began investigations on his political opponent during the campaign, with Steele himself leaking much of it to the press. Is that election interference?

By the way, the Clinton campaign was fined by the FEC for writing in "legal expenses" where it was in fact for campaign spending. This, according to you and Bragg, is a felony. But of course no one has been indicted for it.

Wrong. The appellate court didn't rule that the jury got it wrong. It ruled that their verdict may have been influenced by the inadmissible evidence. This is not a revised finding of "not guilty", it's simply negating the trial. Weinstein can be retried, and it's reported that there will indeed be a new trial.

I think you're quibbling at this point. I never said that the court ruled the jury got it wrong.

Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s. — NOS4A2

What other conspiracy theories do you embrace?

Taking everything at face value is not evidence either. — NOS4A2

More conspiracy theory reasoning. There's no evidence for your claim, but you point to an absence of evidence for it being false as somehow relevant.

But the question as to why Bragg pivoted from not prosecuting the zombie case to prosecuting the case remains, and to me it’s no strange wonder that Bragg announced indictments a few months after Colangelo joined his team.

I've given you my theory regarding Bragg: there were personal political motivations. And I expect he hired Colangelo for the express purpose of prosecuting Trump. (Don't forget that I have never been a fan of pursuing this).

Relativist: "It's established that Russia engaged in election interference by illegally accessing DNC emails. Wikileaks also engaged in election interference by leaking those emails at strategic times during the campaign. There's also strong evidence Roger Stone was coordinating that activity with Julian Assange.

The Russia Investigation (which was in no way, a hoax) became public AFTER the election, so it can't be considered election interference.

But yes, I can think of others- and I listed some. E.g. Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden. The "catch and kill" conspiracy was election interference (even though aspects of it were legal, it's still interference)."

Now who is the conspiracy theorist? — NOS4A2

You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.

Note how you never mentioned the Clinton campaign's solicitation of dirt from Christopher Steele... — NOS4A2

Distortion. I've explained this to you before.

...which was then used in FISA courts to open up surveillance on Trump's campaign, during the campaign.

Indeed, exactly 2 FISA warrants were granted that shouldn't have been. These errors do not imply the Russia investigation was unwarranted- even Durham acknowledged an investigation was warranted. Mueller discovered most of the facts I cited, and no one has refuted them. Trumpists like yourself hide behind the FISA errors to avoid facing the facts that were uncovered.

What other conspiracy theories do you embrace?

My claim was based on congressional testimony.

You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.

More conspiracy theory reasoning. There's no evidence for your claim, but you point to an absence of evidence for it being false as somehow relevant.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned. It's not my fault you are unable to infer beyond the facts, and when you do, it's invariably in defence against anything that might dispute your narrative.

I've given you my theory regarding Bragg: there were personal political motivations. And I expect he hired Colangelo for the express purpose of prosecuting Trump. (Don't forget that I have never been a fan of pursuing this).

Then why are you defending it?

You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.

You simply regurgitated some of the findings of the Mueller report. But I can go to the Mueller report and find not a single mention of FusionGPS or the Clinton campaign's effort to interfere in the election, or them disguising that fact by falsifying their records, which is a felony according to you and Bragg. That you accept this and other records as "established facts" proves only your appeal to authority.

My post history in this thread will confirm that I share mostly mainstream sources, and from all over the spectrum. I do this because I read all news. By dismissing this evidence, your accusations amount to projection only, as your own bubble shrinks around you.

Distortion. I've explained this to you before.

I don't recall. So it isn't a felony to to falsify business records in order to interfere in an election?

Indeed, exactly 2 FISA warrants were granted that shouldn't have been. These errors do not imply the Russia investigation was unwarranted- even Durham acknowledged an investigation was warranted. Mueller discovered most of the facts I cited, and no one has refuted them. Trumpists like yourself hide behind the FISA errors to avoid facing the facts that were uncovered.

That's inaccurate. Durham said a preliminary investigation was warranted. There was no preliminary investigation. It immediately kicked into a full-on probe, which was not warranted.

The Mueller probe also discarded much of the facts, essentially hiding them from you, in what I would call a cover-up. As Durham points out, agents on the Mueller team were told to stop investigating Democrat operative Charles Dolan, a source for one of the allegations, even though he was one of the few Americans tied to Russian government. One agent speculated whether it was politically motivated, because it "ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating given that Dolan was a former Democratic political operative".

Does it surprise you, as it did Durham, that an investigation tasked with investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election refused to interview or investigate one of the three Americans named by Steele to have Russian ties, despite the instinct of some agents to do so?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned. It's not my fault you are unable to infer beyond the facts, and when you do, it's invariably in defence against anything that might dispute your narrative. — NOS4A2

Odd you should write that, because your inference beyond facts works to support your narrative. Anyway, no matter, carry on.

It’s either that or they’re completely incompetent, neither of which is good for your truckling.

The seriousness with which people take the Stormy Daniels situation is utterly bizarre. It's the lowest level bullshit one could worry themselves with.

My claim was based on congressional testimony. — NOS4A2

An accusation by Jim Jordan does not constitute congressional testimony.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned — NOS4A2

OK, there is no direct evidence of Biden's involvement. Broadly speaking, all related facts constitute evidence. Circumstantial evidence can justify a judgement if the totality of evidence shows it to be more likely than not (at minimum). That is not the case here. All you have is a set of facts that are consistent with your theory. You've ignored other relevant facts, and haven't entertained alternative theories that also explain these (and other) facts. Rather, you are applying bias against Biden and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

That's inaccurate. Durham said a preliminary investigation was warranted. There was no preliminary investigation. It immediately kicked into a full-on probe, which was not warranted. — NOS4A2

Durham judged that only a preliminary investigation was initially warranted (although that is a matter of opinion), but this would have made no difference because it would have escalated to a full investigation once they obtained the initial Steele materials. The Steele memos accurately noted that Russia wanted to assist Trump and hurt Clinton , and that Russia was responsible for the DNC hacks, and forwarded them to Wikileaks. These were subsequently proven true, despite there also being more spurious information. The point is that a full investigation would have become warranted at that time.

As Durham points out, agents on the Mueller team were told to stop investigating Democrat operative Charles Dolan, a source for one of the allegations, even though he was one of the few Americans tied to Russian government. One agent speculated whether it was politically motivated, because it "ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating given that Dolan was a former Democratic political operative". — NOS4A2

They were told not to investigate Dolan because it wasn't deemed pertinent. The speculation that it may have been politically motivated is just that- speculation by one analyst, with no "definitive evidence to support her belief". Dolan is believed to have invented the "golden showers" story, but none of this has bearing on the findings of the Mueller report that I cited, nor does it imply there was a broad "hoax". Presumably, Dolan lied, and this made into the Steele memos, the FBI dropped the ball in that respect - but it remains the case that Russia hacked DNC servers, gave the emails to Wikileaks, and there's testimony that Stone worked with Assange on strategically releasing them. Further, it's established that Manafort shared polling data with Russia, Russia asked Manafort to get Trump to support their "annexation" of Crimea. Manafort denied discussing this with Trump, but we know Trump actually did support the annexation. This is clearly circumstantial evidence of an illegal conspiracy, although clearly not sufficient evidence to indict. (But clearly a stronger circumstantal case than your Biden allegation. The difference: your bias).

Does it surprise you, as it did Durham, that an investigation tasked with investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election refused to interview or investigate one of the three Americans named by Steele to have Russian ties, despite the instinct of some agents to do so? — NOS4A2

Durham does not express "surprise", he just indicates that he sees no "objectively sound reason for the decision that was made not to interview him." So this sounds more like criticizing their judgement, and it's a legitimate criticism.

"Some" agents? I believe it was exactly ONE agent, and she also indicated she saw no indications of political bias by the team.

It's not surprising that the Mueller team would deem it irrelevant, since Dolan's lies only pertained to some allegations in the Steele memos, which Mueller's investigation was not relying on. It's another matter during Crossfire Hurricane and relevant to their inappropriate reliance on Steele's memos to support the Carter Page FISA warrants. The FBIs failure to interview Dolan was definitely poor judgement. But again, such errors have no bearing on the activities exposed by Mueller. Errors by the FBI do not negate the fact that a Russia Investigation was warranted - and that Trump and members of his campaign behaved inappropriately and possibly illegally: there was insufficient evidence to indict, but there was some evidence of crimes - not to mention Trump's obstruction of justice that actually could have led to indictment had Barr not stopped it.

Republicans, led by former president Donald Trump, are refusing to commit to accept November’s election results with six months until voters head to the polls, raising concerns that the country could see a repeat of the violent aftermath of Trump’s loss four years ago.

The question has become something of a litmus test, particularly among the long list of possible running mates for Trump, whose relationship with his first vice president, Mike Pence, ruptured because Pence resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the 2020 election.

In a vivid recent example, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was pressed at least six times in a TV interview Sunday on whether he would accept this November’s results. He repeatedly declined to do so, only saying he was looking forward to Trump being president again.

He continued to evade the question even as the interviewer, NBC News’s Kristen Welker, reminded him that a “hallmark of our democracy is that both candidates agree to a peaceful transfer of power.”


“This is why so many Americans believe that NBC is an extension of the Democrat party at the end of the day,” Scott said at one point. “… I believe that President Trump will be our next president. It’s that simple.” — Top Republicans, led by Trump, refuse to commit to accept 2024 election results, Washington Post

**THE COUP ATTEMPT IS ONGOING**

That happened a while ago already. There were several decisions that have resulted in me categorically refusing the application of any US state law when negotiating contracts. And I'm not the only European lawyer who has started to take that stance.

Sure. It’s just funny coming from a delusional Trump supporter— as though prosecuting a degenerate con man will finally bring down America law.

An accusation by Jim Jordan does not constitute congressional testimony.

No, but Tony Bobulinski testifying in front of congress does.

OK, there is no direct evidence of Biden's involvement. Broadly speaking, all related facts constitute evidence. Circumstantial evidence can justify a judgement if the totality of evidence shows it to be more likely than not (at minimum). That is not the case here. All you have is a set of facts that are consistent with your theory. You've ignored other relevant facts, and haven't entertained alternative theories that also explain these (and other) facts. Rather, you are applying bias against Biden and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

A set of facts consistent to the theory. That’s right. And you have a set of statements and denials consistent with your theory. I have entertained that theory and find it completely lacking in all respects.

They were told not to investigate Dolan because it wasn't deemed pertinent. The speculation that it may have been politically motivated is just that- speculation by one analyst, with no "definitive evidence to support her belief". Dolan is believed to have invented the "golden showers" story, but none of this has bearing on the findings of the Mueller report that I cited, nor does it imply there was a broad "hoax". Dolan lied, and this made into the Steele memos, the FBI dropped the ball in that respect - but it remains the case that Russia hacked DNC servers, gave the emails to Wikileaks, and there's testimony that Stone worked with Assange on strategically releasing them. Further, it's established that Manafort shared polling data with Russia, Russia asked Manafort to get Trump to support their "annexation" of Crimea. Manafort denied discussing this with Trump, but we know Trump actually did support the annexation. This is clearly circumstantial evidence of an illegal conspiracy, although clearly not sufficient evidence to indict. (But clearly a stronger circumstantal case than your Biden allegation. The difference: your bias).

It has plenty of bearing on the Mueller report because the report is missing facts regarding Russian interference, which they were tasked with investigating. Thus, these facts do not show up in your loose conspiracy theory. Nowhere does it mention FusionGPS, for instance, which we now know was looking for dirt on Clinton's political opponents. Much of this dirt contained Russian misinformation, possibly sourced from Charles Dolan, a Russia-connected Dem operative. It seems you do not care that this misinformation made it into the highest echelons of the intelligence community, leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

But I'm supposed to care about Hillary or Podesta's emails? Or some facebook ads put out by some obscure Russian internet agency? Manafort's Polling data? This is the extent of your illegal conspiracy? I think your priorities are backwards, friend.

Durham does not express "surprise", he just indicates that he sees no "objectively sound reason for the decision that was made not to interview him." So this sounds more like criticizing their judgement, and it's a legitimate criticism.

As you would say, "that's inaccurate".

"This directive given by the Mueller investigation leadership is somewhat surprising given that Director Mueller's broad mandate was to investigate, among other things, Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election - parameters that clearly would seem to include the Steele Reports."

"Some" agents? I believe it was exactly ONE agent, and she also indicated she saw no indications of political bias by the team.

That's inaccurate. Read the sub-section "Mueller Supervisory Special Agent-I and Mueller Analyst-I push to open a case on Charles Dolan".

It's not surprising that the Mueller team would deem it irrelevant, since Dolan's lies only pertained to some allegations in the Steele memos, which Mueller's investigation was not relying on. It's another matter during Crossfire Hurricane and relevant to their inappropriate reliance on Steele's memos to support the Carter Page FISA warrants. The FBIs failure to interview Dolan was definitely poor judgement. But again, such errors have no bearing on the activities exposed by Mueller. Errors by the FBI do not negate the fact that a Russia Investigation was warranted - and that Trump and members of his campaign behaved inappropriately and possibly illegally: there was insufficient evidence to indict, but there was some evidence of crimes - not to mention Trump's obstruction of justice that actually could have led to indictment had Barr not stopped it.

The Mueller team had to fire a couple of its members. That's how incompetent they were.

I absolutely give a single straw about what he allegedly exposed. It was a garbage investigation from the very beginning and will go down in history as such.

No, but Tony Bobulinski testifying in front of congress does. — NOS4A2

I was referring to your response to this:

I said: "So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence."

You responded: "Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s".

Then you indicated it was based on "Congressional testimony". I thought you were claiming there was testimony about Colangelo (there wasn't, but Jim Jordan posted an accusation to that effect). Now it seems you were actually implying that Bobulinski's allegation would also apply to your theory that Biden was behind Colangelo's move. That's quite a stretch. It's not evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move, it's only suggestive that IF he was, then he MIGHT HAVE done it in such a way that he had plausible deniability.

A set of facts consistent to the theory. That’s right. And you have a set of statements and denials consistent with your theory. I have entertained that theory and find it completely lacking in all respects. — NOS4A2

The set of facts is consistent with any number of theories- that's the problem. There is no evidence of Biden's involvement with Colangelo's move; the "circumstantial evidence" consists of the fact he'd been appointed assistant attorney general (serving 11 months), and then he left to join the Bragg's team - and he had previously worked with Bragg. Your theory seems fueled either by Trump's claims that Biden is behind all his indictments, or by your own personal bias against Biden.

Regarding my theory, I didn't at all rely on statements and denials- I noted facts that you ignored: Colangelo had his own motivation to pursue Trump; Biden could have simply let the federal case proceed. So your theory lacks plausibility.

It has plenty of bearing on the Mueller report because the report is missing facts regarding Russian interference, which they were tasked with investigating. — NOS4A2

Mueller's team was not focused on the problems with the Steele memos, they were focused on examining actual Russian interference. Dolan was not a Russian, he was an American who gave false information to Steele.

Thus, these facts do not show up in your loose conspiracy theory. Nowhere does it mention FusionGPS, for instance, which we now know was looking for dirt on Clinton's political opponents. Much of this dirt contained Russian misinformation, possibly sourced from Charles Dolan, a Russia-connected Dem operative.

You misunderstand if you think I'm pushing a conspiracy theory. I listed a set of facts uncovered by Mueller during his investigation, and those are not Russian disinformation.

Yes, I know (and we've previously discussed) the fact that Fusion was hired to do opposition research - an activity that is common in major elections. Fusion hired Steele to dig into Trump's Russian connections (Fusion had already established that there were quite a few such connections). And I also know that some of the information Steele provided was false, apparently including some information from Dolan.

The Mueller investigation was not taking the Steele information at face value. They had moved well beyond what Steele had provided - and obtained their own information. The Fusion connection was moot to Mueller, and Dolan's disinformation considered low priority. The Mueller team was under constant pressure to complete their work in a timely fashion (partly because Trump repeatedly threatened to fire them), which means it was virtually impossible to follow every lead.

It seems you do not care that this misinformation made it into the highest echelons of the intelligence community, leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

Wrong again. I think the errors involved with the 2 Carter Page FISA warrants were terrible and I'm very glad IG Horowitz identified the problems and that leadership addressed the issues. As you know, Durham had nothing additional to suggest.

The Mueller team had to fire a couple of its members. That's how incompetent they were. — NOS4A2

Wrong again. Strzok and Page weren't fired for being incompetent investigators. They were fired because of their texts showed they had animosity toward Trump, and this would give the perception of bias in the investigation. The IG found no basis to conclude they actually took any improper actions, although Durham opines that their animosity toward Trump would predispose them to investigate. His opinion is supported only by the text messages (which he lists in his report), not from testimony or other evidence. Regardless, the Mueller investigation is not tainted, because they were taken off it.

...leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

Who, besides Carter Page, was inappropriately spied upon? Threatening prosecution for other crimes is a tool investigators employ to get cooperation. For example, Manafort had a history of financial crimes that they tried to use to get his cooperation. He agreed to cooperate, but was caught lying - after Trump had essentially promised him a pardon for staying loyal. He was then prosecuted and convicted on a number of counts - then Trump fulfilled his promise to pardon him. Who knows what we might have learned had Manafort cooperated honestly? It was Manafort who received the request for Trump to endorse the Crimea annexation. Maybe it would prove to be a dead, but it shows there's a clear possibility of conspiracy - although far short of enough to indict.

The Russia investigation was hardly "frivolous". A foreign government illegally interfered in an election. Imagine if this HADN'T been investigated! You seem sensitive (alleged) election interference when Trump is the alleged victim, but when Trump benefits- all you care about are the errors made when that interference was investigated!

I absolutely give a single straw about what he allegedly exposed. It was a garbage investigation from the very beginning and will go down in history as such. — NOS4A2

It was your claim of a "Russia Hoax" then sent us off on this discussion. These facts that you don't care about prove the Russia Investigation was not a hoax.

Mueller's report along with the Senate Investigation led by Rubio, establish the historical record on Russian interference, and Trump's welcoming of it.

The IG report was relevant for showing abuses of the FISA process, while vindicating the opening of Russia investigation.

Durham's report highlights differences of opinion regarding a variety of judgement calls that history can study, but it also confirms there was no widespread conspiracy to get Trump- as so many Trumpists had anticipated.

Members of the Trump campaign worked with Russians, and with Wikileaks. And it's a very big deal that Russia asked Trump for support regarding their annexation of Crimea. These results show that the investigation was worthwhile; Durham never suggests otherwise. Durham tried in vain to show there was an anti-Trump conspiracy, but he did not find one. The only thing he added to the findings of the IG was his questioning some of the decisions that were made - particularly, and as you noted, the opening of a full investigation rather than a preliminary one. Durham didn't develop this opinion as a result of his investigation- that was the view he expressed after reviewing the IG report. The results of the Mueller investigation suggest the instincts of the decision makers were generally correct- in spite of the fact that they can be second-guessed.

That's inaccurate. Read the sub-section "Mueller Supervisory Special Agent-I and Mueller Analyst-I push to open a case on Charles Dolan". — NOS4A2

Two had thought it worthwhile to follow-up with Dolan, but after they were advised from highers-up that was outside scope, Durham states only that "Mueller Analyst-I disagreed with the contention that Dolan fell outside of the Mueller mandate." That's what I was refering to.

"This directive given by the Mueller investigation leadership is somewhat surprising given that Director Mueller's broad mandate was to investigate, among other things, Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election - parameters that clearly would seem to include the Steele Reports." — NOS4A2

Fair enough, he did express surprise. However, he does not explain what we would have gained from pursuing this - other than clarifying what disinformation Dolan conveyed, and perhaps charging him with lying to the FBI. I wonder why Durham didn't seek to pursue this - he never successfully identified and prosecuted any related crimes (Kevin Clinesmith plead guilty to an immaterial [but illegal] document alteration during Durham's tenure, but that crime was identified by Horowitz).

9May24

Today in Trumpenfreude

It doesn’t say ‘President Trump,’ it says ‘orange turd,’ ...

I absolutely meant Mr. Trump. — Stormy Daniels while cross-examined by Trump's defense lawyer Susan Necheles

:clap: :rofl: "Orange Turd-1"

–—

And brought into the official record by the Orange Turd's own lawyer, who drew attention to the epithet and insisted on the naming being made explicit.

And then tried to use it to claim a mistrial. Whose side is she on? Trump's of course, but Trump is his own worst enemy. Trying to shame a porn-star is like trying to spice up a chilli pickle.

Trump's of course, but Trump is his own worst enemy. Trying to shame a porn-star is like trying to spice up a chili pickle. — unenlightened

:lol: :up:

The cope is real. Frothing over a brilliant tweet from a couple years ago (which also shows Daniel’s admitting to violating a court order), the anti-Trump press has settled on a trite piece of social media as the only propaganda to be gleaned from this trial, apparently.

However, the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. The defense played a recording of her lawyer trying to shake down Cohen, letting him know how much Stormy wanted the money before the election. Plus we learn of the schizophrenic differences between her story today and her story yesterday. And to top it all off, we also learn that she is a medium who speaks to dead people. This is Lawrence Odonnel’s saint!

Can’t wait to hear more.

However, the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. — NOS4A2

A nice counterpoint of reasoned argument combined with personal denigration. The apprentice learns from the master.