WASHINGTON — It became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald Trump and his supporters: The investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia was a witch hunt, they maintained, that had been opened without any solid basis, went on too long and found no proof of collusion.

Egged on by Trump, Attorney General William Barr set out in 2019 to dig into their shared theory that the Russia investigation likely stemmed from a conspiracy by intelligence or law enforcement agencies. To lead the inquiry, Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John Durham and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Trump left office.

But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep-state plot alleged by Trump and suspected by Barr.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-barr-durham-russia-investigation-20230126-uw7fl7ftabcuxanbhu3qoab33a-story.html

One takeaway is how futile are the hopes of those who believe the House Committe is going to uncover some grand corruption at the base of the Russia investigation. Both Barr and Durham were true believers in this. Barr went so far as to release a statement to this effect minutes before the Inspector General of the Justice Dept revealed in his report that he found no evidence of corruption or malign intent in the Justice Dept. investigation of the Russian affair. Later, Durham chimed in similarly.  

 

Barr and Durham had actually traveled to Europe attempt to coerce Italian and British intelligence services into admitting that they had forwarded information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.  Not only did they deny it, but let's just say that those foreign intelligence services weren't converted into fans of Barr and Durham. What makes it worse is that when Italian intelligence officials gave them some information potentially tying Trump to criminal elements, Barr assigned Durham to undertake a criminal investigation. Even though, this had nothing to do with Durham's mandate.

 

So if these  2 true believers came up with nothing, despite the immense power that Barr had backing him, what chance does a Republican committee have of unearthing anything new?

Edited January 27, 20233 yr by placeholder

There's something fishy about this investigation! Durham should be investigated!

"Mr. Durham used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide to George Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media. Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued."

 

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=134470

 

The republicans sure flopped on this one but wait there’s more they are so desperate to slander that instead of governing they are going to desperately try to destroy the Biden’s .enough!! Stop the attacks and govern that’s their job do it or become extinct as a political party 

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

Edited January 27, 20233 yr by nauseus

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

In fact, the report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,” and it established both how Moscow had worked to help Trump win and how his campaign had expected to benefit from the foreign interference.

A post with oversized font has been removed.

 

Maybe if it looks like DT has a good chance of being the GOP 2024 candidate Mueller hisself will step up and say what needs to be said. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Maybe if it looks like DT has a good chance of being the GOP 2024 candidate Mueller hisself will step up and say what needs to be said.

I wouldn't bet on that.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

When did the New York Times become the Chicago Tribune?

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

NYT again with nothing that has any meat, really. Same old.

I think the "Same old" part is that you didn't actually read the article. You certainly give no evidence of it. And I wasn't aware that it had been reported earlier that Italian intelligence had supplied info that could connect Trump to criminal activity. Nor that Barr had authorized Durham to undertake a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with his investigation into the Russian affair. Can you share with us where you had learned about that?
 

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

When did the New York Times become the Chicago Tribune?

Look at it more closely.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think the "Same old" part is that you didn't actually read the article. You certainly give no evidence of it. And I wasn't aware that it had been reported earlier that Italian intelligence had supplied info that could connect Trump to criminal activity. Nor that Barr had authorized Durham to undertake a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with his investigation into the Russian affair. Can you share with us where you had learned about that?
 

I read it. It's just the same old style of propaganda, with no actual proof of any of its claims.

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Look at it more closely.

I did.  I even checked the link.  https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-barr-durham-russia-investigation-20230126-uw7fl7ftabcuxanbhu3qoab33a-story.html

 

It references the NYT, but it is a Chicago Tribune news story.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I did.  I even checked the link.  https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-aud-nw-nyt-barr-durham-russia-investigation-20230126-uw7fl7ftabcuxanbhu3qoab33a-story.html

 

It references the NYT, but it is a Chicago Tribune news story.

This is the byline:

 

By Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner

The New York Times

 

Jan 27, 2023 at 3:30 pm

 

This is the copyright:

c.2023 The New York Times Company

 

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

This is the byline:

 

By Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner

The New York Times

 

Jan 27, 2023 at 3:30 pm

 

This is the copyright:

c.2023 The New York Times Company

 

Ok, I stand corrected.  I can't verify because of paywalls.

Here's a fuller version of the nytimes article. What is in there is verbatim but not quite complete, though. It left off some stuff at the end

https://www.yahoo.com/news/barr-pressed-durham-flaws-russia-213717986.html

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Ok, I stand corrected.  I can't verify because of paywalls.

No worries, The link with the OP opened up OK for me.

Why Merrick Garland Should Fire Special Counsel Durham Now

 

"But it is not Durham’s losses and lack of deliverables that make his tenure untenable. After all, prosecutors should be unafraid to try tough cases and lose them. No, the problem with Durham is that his assignment arose from Barr’s efforts to undermine the Russia probe to aid Trump, and Durham compounded that unethical origin with his own unethical actions."

https://news.yahoo.com/why-merrick-garland-fire-special-222616757.html

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

No worries, The link with the OP opened up OK for me.

It worked for me the first time.  Apparently I was only allowed one free view.

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think the "Same old" part is that you didn't actually read the article. You certainly give no evidence of it. And I wasn't aware that it had been reported earlier that Italian intelligence had supplied info that could connect Trump to criminal activity. Nor that Barr had authorized Durham to undertake a criminal investigation that had nothing to do with his investigation into the Russian affair. Can you share with us where you had learned about that?
 

Whenever you come across something that concerns DT and the 2020 election that involves Italy, it probably has to do with the man wearing several shirts: Bannon.

https://strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/31/steve-bannon-emerging-fascist-international-in-europe/

 

 

 

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

It worked for me the first time.  Apparently I was only allowed one free view.

You probably need to delete the cookie or cookies on your browser for that website.

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

He lost both times on the cases he and his team developed. Most legal experts thought both cases were astonishingly weak. And his own deputy quit on him because of the weakness of a case. (The only 2 prominent experts I can recall who thought Durham had a good case were Turley and Dershowitz. And those two also supported judge Aileen Cannon's call for a special master. That one got laughed out of court by  right wing justices.)

And what you utterly ignore is that both Barr and Durham started out to prove that corruption in the justice dept was behind the Russian investigation. That members of the FBI had conspired to get Trump. They even publicly disputed the Inspector General's report which concluded that wasn't the case. Which was bizarre.  Barr and Durham even traveled several times to Europe to put pressure in the Italian and British intelligence service to come clean about how that has passed along false intel in order to damage Trump. Those service pretty much told them to f*** off. What Durham ended up trying to prove and evan failing at that was that the two defendants had deceived the FBI. Which was exactly opposite to what he had sought to prove when he started out. Barr ultimately conceded that the Durham investigation had failed in its original goal.

Doubtless Durham will write a report that will attempt to justify his investigation. An investigation which lasted longer than Mueller's and resulted in only one minor conviction based on evidence that the Inspector General, you know, the guy whose report was dissed by Durham, provided.

2 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

Ahh nope it was a trump Barr fishing expedition that failed trump is a dirty little monkey I suspect even you know it yourself 

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

The gen z and extreme liberal political pundits may swallow this NYT piece but you, me and millions more know better .Durham lit the way!
 

Your Nyp source shows that what one could expect in getting  a fair trial when 90% of the voters votes dem  in Dc.  Your right, its comical.

 

Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

 

 

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by Jai Dee
Correction by OP's request

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

Lol! The Durham probe actually debunked Trump's conspiracy theory

 

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by candide

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The comedy rolls on. Just hilarious seeing the left doing congratulatory back slaps and attaboys concerning the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. Durham had bad luck with the jury selection - not going into that again(1) but it was not a fair and impartial jury. Still, Durham is a HERO for once and for all overturning yet another conspiracy theory, and I for one am grateful the truth is finally allowed to be spoken out loud.

 

"The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-did-it-robby-mook-michael-sussmann-donald-trump-russia-collusion-alfa-bank-11653084709

 

 Thank you Mr. Durham, great work in spite of your hands being tied behind your back. The truth is out there for anyone interested in educating themselves about the disgraceful sham impeachment of A sitting President, the ramifications will be felt for decades.

 

(1) supporting evidence for claim made that the jury in the Sussman trial was not impartial.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

And what did she do exactly? She authozed the leaking of information to the press. Which your carefully selected quote fails to make clear.

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by candide

1 hour ago, riclag said:

The gen z and extreme liberal political pundits may swallow this NYT piece but you, me and millions more know better .Durham lit the way!
 

Your Nyp source shows that what one could expect in getting  a fair trial when 90% of the voters votes dem  in Dc.  Your right, its comical.

 

Special counsel John Durham’s team objected to putting one Clinton contributor on the panel after the man said he would “strive for impartiality as best I can.”

https://nypost.com/2022/05/16/hillary-aoc-donors-among-jury-pool-in-ex-clinton-lawyers-trial/

 

 

Even if Sussman had been convicted of lying, it still would not have confirmed Trump's conspiracy theory.

Two facts came up from testimonies during the trial, which are completely independent from the fact that Sussman was convicted or not:

- the FBI dismissed the information brought by Sussman as not reliable, and did not use it,

- the FBI made the decision to investigate links between Russia and the Trump campaign before Sussman gave them the Alfa bank information

 

Actually, this trial contributed to debunk Trump's narrative.

Edited January 29, 20233 yr by candide

The Durham Probe Was Barr’s Witch Hunt A shockingly unethical and failed crusade to vindicate Trump.

"There is an enduring pattern in American conservatism in which the right first develops a paranoid interpretation of the liberal Establishment, and then reverse engineers its own version of the monster it has imagined. Conservatives convinced themselves that the mainstream media and universities were mere propaganda organs, then created institutions like the Heritage Foundation and Fox News, warped reflections of their own overheated critique...

John Durham’s investigation is a classic episode in this tradition."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/01/the-durham-probe-was-barrs-witch-hunt.html?utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1