New Durham indictment - second leg of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion dirty trick

[rogue06]

Or a Presidential speech.

This all brings up the question, just how long can a politician go without telling a lie. I don't mean how long can they go without talking, but how much can the say that is true before falling back into lying. smiley waiting-impatient.gif

[Mountain Man]

The chances of Hillary being indicted are as good as my chances of having Donald Trump show up at my door to adopt me as his long lost son.

[Stoic]

This was a lot more detailed of a plan to have been hatched and carried out by the lawyer without approval and instigation by the Clinton campaign. If it were the lawyer's idea he wouldn't have billed them for it. No, the campaign knew about it. Occam's razor.

It wasn't all that detailed, just pointing out the communications between the Alfa Bank computer and the Trump campaign computer. But I believe there is actual evidence that the campaign was involved in discussions of the matter.

I'm not sure it matters whether the campaign knew about it, since there was nothing illegal about it (except for the allegedly lying to a federal agent part of it, of course).

[Mountain Man]

An FBI agent could come up to you and ask a couple of questions in the morning. He doesn't take notes or record it, and that afternoon, after he returns to the office, he writes up his report. What is written then, from memory, becomes official. If he makes a mistake and misstates something you said you can find yourself in big trouble for lying to him even if that wasn't what you said.

Personally, I would never talk to an FBI agent without recording it or having my attorney present. Remember how they lied to Flynn saying that the conversation was unofficial and off the record and therefore having a lawyer was not necessary? Maybe it would be smart to both record the conversation and have your attorney present.

When it comes to talking to law enforcement, there is no such thing as "off the record".

[Stoic]

Remember how they lied to Flynn saying that the conversation was unofficial and off the record and therefore having a lawyer was not necessary?

That's not quite true, although McCabe did say that if Flynn wanted to have a lawyer present, they would have to involve the Justice Department. And they did choose not to advise Flynn that it was against the law to lie to them.

Maybe it would be smart to both record the conversation and have your attorney present.

Probably so.

[Sparko]

It wasn't all that detailed, just pointing out the communications between the Alfa Bank computer and the Trump campaign computer. But I believe there is actual evidence that the campaign was involved in discussions of the matter.

I'm not sure it matters whether the campaign knew about it, since there was nothing illegal about it (except for the allegedly lying to a federal agent part of it, of course).

"In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election."


He created the memo THEN pointed it out along with other evidence. It was a pretty detailed and elaborate hoax. Why do you seem to find the need to always argue against anything anyone says in a post, no matter how many ridiculous lengths you have to go to in order to do so? Is it some pathological need on your part to be a contrarian?

[Stoic]

"In painstaking detail, Durham laid out in the indictment Thursday how Democrat superlawyer Michael Sussmann used Clinton campaign funds to construct a now-debunked memo and other evidence alleging that computer communications between a server at the Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Tower in New York might be a secret backdoor communication system for Trump and Vladimir Putin to hijack the 2016 election."


He created the memo THEN pointed it out along with other evidence. It was a pretty detailed and elaborate hoax. Why do you seem to find the need to always argue against anything anyone says in a post, no matter how many ridiculous lengths you have to go to in order to do so? Is it some pathological need on your part to be a contrarian?

I guess we are going by different definitions of "detailed and elaborate".

[rogue06]

CNN is working hard at dismissing this as a nothing burger. On Sunday night Brian Stelter declared that Republicans were "lying" about it even after the first indictment, of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, was being handed down. Stelter attempted to pooh-pooh the charge of providing false statements as nothing more than "peripheral characters flubbing details," blithely ignoring the fact that many if not most of Robert Mueller's indictments were for giving false statements under oath. And most of those were disreputable perjury traps.

[CivilDiscourse]

CNN is working hard at dismissing this as a nothing burger. On Sunday night Brian Stelter declared that Republicans were "lying" about it even after the first indictment, of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, was being handed down. Stelter attempted to pooh-pooh the charge of providing false statements as nothing more than "peripheral characters flubbing details," blithely ignoring the fact that many if not most of Robert Mueller's indictments were for giving false statements under oath. And most of those were disreputable perjury traps.

That was different, they KNEW Trump and his cronies were guilty, so these crimes were obviously important.

[Stoic]

That was different, they KNEW Trump and his cronies were guilty, so these crimes were obviously important.

The real difference is that Sussmann's alleged lie didn't interfere with Durham's investigation. At worst, it wasted some of the FBI's time because they spent more time investigating the allegations than they otherwise would have. (Not that that doesn't deserve punishment, but it's not quite the same as potentially letting bad guys get away.)

[seanD]

The real difference is that Sussmann's alleged lie didn't interfere with Durham's investigation. At worst, it wasted some of the FBI's time because they spent more time investigating the allegations than they otherwise would have. (Not that that doesn't deserve punishment, but it's not quite the same as potentially letting bad guys get away.)

According to Ric Grenell...

As Durham, a former Connecticut federal prosecutor, is investigating the origins of the Russia investigation, Grenell advised that the original Russia probe continued past September of 2016 not because of "some lawyer [lying] to the FBI about who he was working for – because the FBI leadership knew this information was wrong – they continued the investigation because it would help Hillary Clinton."

"Everybody in Washington -- lobbyists, newsrooms, a whole bunch of people -- wanted Hillary to win. So what did they do? They allowed this opposition research to become part of the DOJ and FBI. That is so scary to think that politics permeated into the DOJ and to the FBI. This is what we call political prosecution, and when it happens in third world countries we call it out."

[Cow Poke]

According to Ric Grenell...

I'm betting neither of us is shocked.

[seanD]

I'm betting neither of us is shocked.

Strzok's and Page's email exchanges make it pretty obvious.

[Cow Poke]

Strzok's and Page's email exchanges make it pretty obvious.

And we knew that WAY back when.

[rogue06]

I'm betting neither of us is shocked.