[johnforbes]

"Special Counsel John Durham released his final report concluding the FBI had no verified intel when it opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump in 2016..."

[Clownkicker]

No, he didn't, johnny. You made it up.

(I know, YOU didn't say it. You simply posted a lie told by someone else without attribution. But that makes it YOUR lie as well, dimwit.)

[johnforbes]

"After four years – and over 300 pages – Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed to look into the impetus behind the Deep State FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into bogus claims of Russian collusion to influence the 2016 presidential election, has released his findings to the public.

..., the Durham Report confirms there was no evidence to justify the Department of Justice and FBI’s investigation in the first place. The basis for Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t even in compliance with the DOJ’s rules and regulations for starting an investigation.."

[Clownkicker]

And now for the rest of the story that johnfibs didn't tell us:

"'Big fat nothing': Mueller prosecutor walks through a fact-check of John Durham's report

Former prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, responded to the recently released report from former special counsel John Durham during a conversation with MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace Monday.

The host began naming off all of the guilty convictions that Mueller got during his probe.

"Durham's whole thing is predicated on — it's like a rabbit hole conspiracy that suggests that the Trump-Bill Barr paranoia infected his ability to stand back and evaluate whether the probe yielded guilty convictions of people who would have had nothing to do with any of these questions he looked at," said Wallace. "It is a view from so far down the rabbit hole that what needs a scrub, what needs oversight is what Mr. Durham did that repelled his long-time prosecutorial partner, Nora Dannehy and other prosecutors."

Nora Dannehy was a key partner of Durham's who resigned, complaining that the work Durham was doing was all about giving Trump information for political purposes. It all came to a head in what was reported as an "explosive" meeting. She quit shortly after.

Comparing the Durham probe to the Justice Department's 2019 Inspector General report, Weissmann explained that the IG's report was "properly predicated" that there was "no bias." What was at issue was a list of internal FBI rules and policies on investigations, none of which are laws that FBI agents or officers broke.

He also recalled IG Michael Horowitz testifying under oath, and that he was asked about Durham's claims they didn't have enough evidence for an investigation into Trump. Horowitz told Congress that he was shocked by the conclusion "because I spoke to John and his concern was not with respect to opening, it's that he thought it should only be opened as the preliminary" investigation, Weissmann characterized.

"In other words, he agrees that there are enough facts for the FBI to open — but a sort of smaller investigation," said Weissmann. "And this is what the IG said: 'Who cares what they did pursuant to the Mueller investigation what could have been done as part of the smaller investigation?'"-Sarah K. Burris


Stop being such a partisan tool, johnny.

[johnforbes]

The only "evidence' was some gossip at a wine bar.

This violated the agency rules for starting an investigation.

Durham has at least told everybody what happened, even though he only charged a few small fry in overwhelmingly pro-Democrat jurisdictions.

There never was any evidence for starting the Trump-Russia probe, or the Mueller report, or any of that -- it was pure partisan politics.

[Clownkicker]

I see, so you couldn't refute anything Weissmann said.

All you could do is parrot the same unsupported partisan talking points you've been spewing for months.

Got it.

[johnforbes]

Mr Forbes is not Durham, nor did he prepare his report,

Mr Forbes merely reads the material, and Durham wrote what he wrote.

The moving finger writes and, having writ, moves on.

It is now beyond dispute that the Trump-Russia collusion probe was started with no evidence other than Democrats dislikiing Trump.

[Clownkicker]

"It is now beyond dispute that the Trump-Russia collusion probe was started with no evidence other than Democrats dislikiing Trump."-johnfibs

Only it IS disputed by Weissmann, Dannehy, Horrowitz, and Durham himself dispute your partisan lies, as I showed you in my post above.

You can't claim something is beyond dispute when four major players in the affair all dispute it, dummy.

[johnforbes]

You can't quote Weissmann, who was Mueller's number 2 guy in that probe, as an impartial critic of the Durham report.

After all, he and Mueller reportedly learned about 10 days in that there was NO EVIDENCE to support the Trump-Russia collusion theory.

But he and Mueller kept the game going for another 2 years for partisan purposes.

[Clownkicker]

"You can't quote Weissmann, who was Mueller's number 2 guy in that probe, as an impartial critic of the Durham report."-johnflops

I can quote anyone I like, dimwit. But I never claimed Weissmann was "impartial." You made it up, as you make up everything you post once you realize you have no rational argument.

Meanwhile, you're pretending that Durham, who was the number 1 guy in the Durham Report, is an impartial proponent of the Durham Report.

So I guess that means (by your idiotic rules) that you can't quote Durham as an impartial proponent of the Durham report, doesn't it.

That's just how stupid you are about your childish partisan hypocrisy.

[johnforbes]

Sure, you can quote Weissmann, but no rational person would given his bias.

[Clownkicker]

When one wishes to know what someone said, the best thing to do is quote them saying it, dimwit. I wanted to tell you what Weissmann said, so I quoted him saying it.

I'm not like you, merely paraphrasing the unsupported propaganda from your handlers. No, I go to the source, in which you have no interest. You ONLY consume and regurgitate second hand propaganda.

You don't get to disqualify the things said by people you personally don't like by simply asserting they are "biased."

The question is not whether they are biased. EVERYONE IS BIASED, dumbfuck. Including you. (Especially you.)

The question is, can you prove anything they said is untrue? And the answer is "No, you can't." That's why you always resort to personal attacks in lieu of facts and reason.

Since you can't prove anything Weissmann said is untrue, you resort to impotent name calling to try (and always failing) to discredit them, as if anyone gives a flying fuck about your childish opinions of anything or anyone.

Try to stick to the facts, johnny. No one is interested in your unsupported and deeply partisan opinions.

[johnforbes]

He was not only biased, but also Second Banana on that investigation.

So he is not a neutral source.

More to the point, he was a Trump hater who abused the probe to get taxpayer dollars for 2 years to further his hatred of Trump, which is not the purpose of an investigation.

[Clownkicker]

Thanks for debunking the Durham Report for us, johnny.

As everyone knows, Durham was not only biased, but also Top Banana on that investigation.

So he is not a neutral source.

More to the point, he was a Trump lover who abused the probe to get taxpayer dollars for 4 years to further his love of Trump, which is not the purpose of an investigation.

4 Years of taxpayer money pissed away to indict three men. And only one produced a conviction on some unrelated charge.

Criminy, the incompetence of Republicans....either that, or the blatant partisan dishonesty of weaponizing the Justice Department.

[johnforbes]

It would be interesting to know whether the Mar a Lago raid was actually to retrieve Crossfire Hurricane documents.

We'll never know, of course, but Durham at least gave the admission that there was no intel at all behind the start of the Trump-Russia probe.

What there apparently was was a bunch of Trump-haters who wanted to prevent Trump from governing, and so they attempted for years to derail him.

Weissmann and Mueller reportedly learned in the first 2 weeks there was no evidence against Trump, but for political purposes they kept their "investigation" going another 2 years.

At the end, when Mueller testified, he seemed confused about even the basic facts so perhaps some element of senility partly excused his participation. He was a vet, so hopefully that was the case.

[Clownkicker]

"Weissmann and Mueller reportedly learned in the first 2 weeks there was no evidence against Trump, but for political purposes they kept their "investigation" going another 2 years."-johnfibs

That's our hypocrite johnny for you. He doesn't understand that the Mueller investigation was not against Trump. The investigation was against any Russian interference with our election. It doesn't matter whether there was no evidence found against Trump in the first two weeks. Thorough investigations take time. In the succeeding weeks a bunch of evidence against Trump was uncovered.


Dishonestjohn is upset at 2 years spent on an investigation that produced all sorts of evidence against Trump cronies, including a bunch of indictments and convictions, proving the value of the investigation.

Meanwhile, johnny supports the wasted 4 year partisan investigation by Durham to find three nobodies to charge, with only one conviction on an unrelated matter, proving the partisan waste of his investigation.

In two years Mueller indicted 34 individuals and 3 Russian businesses. He secured a slew of convictions for crimes against the United States. Since johnforbes hates America, he is understandably upset that criminals he supports would actually be convicted of crimes against the United States.

In 4 years Durham secured one conviction on a minor charge. Count 'em-- "1"
This is the sort of partisan 'investigation' johnforbes supports. It weaponizes the Justice Department for 4 years against those he disagrees with and produces nothing but wasted time and money.

That IS the Republican way. Put on a big, expensive, 4-year-long partisan show but don't find or punish criminals.

Under Democrats, the Mueller money was well spent. They found and punished a lot of criminals. Then, predictably, Trump set them free; the Republican way.

[johnforbes]

Nonsense.

This entire Russia, Russia, Russia stuff was Hillary's strategy to stop Trump.

In the fullness of time, the reason behind the 196 billion sent/pledged to Ukraine will also be learned, but a real foreign policy involves priorities.

It would be nice if Putin had not been an evil dictator who invaded Ukraine, but fixing the U.S. border is much, much more important than fixing Ukraine's border.

[Clownkicker]

I appreciate johnforbes trying to give credit to Hilary Clinton for the arrests and convictions of 34 criminals involved in this scandal, but it was really Mueller that deserves the credit.

And Mueller did it at a fraction of the time and cost that Republicans spent investigating and convicting one guy of one minor offense.

That johnforbes criticizes Democrats for investigating for 2 years and convicting many criminals, but has no problem at all with Republicans for wasting millions of dollars over 4 years of sham investigations to get one minor conviction tells you everything you need to know about johnforbes' partisan hypocrisy.

[johnforbes]

I appreciate Clown's appreciation, but of course Clinton and Mueller were both Democrats.

It really is a shame in Mueller's case -- a veteran, and one would have expected him to be neutral and nonpartisan in executing his duties.

But there was no evidence to begin the Trump-Russia probe, Durham said, and thus the two years of the Mueller probe must be ascribed to political efforts to stop Trump.

[Clownkicker]

As everyone knows, Durham was not only biased, but also Top Banana on that investigation.

So he is not a neutral source.

More to the point, Durham was a Trump lover who abused the probe to get taxpayer dollars for 4 years to further his love of Trump, which is not the purpose of an investigation.

4 Years of taxpayer money pissed away to indict three men. And only one produced a conviction on some unrelated charge.

And this incompetent and wasteful partisan guy is who johnforbes insists should be believed. Hypocritejohnny believes everything Durham said in his report without question while insisting the 34 guys Mueller got convicted should be ignored only because he was appointed by a Democrat.

Partisan hypocrisy, thy name is johnforbes. Such utter contempt for the law is incredible in someone pretending to be a lawyer and an American.

[johnforbes]

No, Durham was not a "Trump lover."

Had he been, he would never have had a career there in an agency dominated by Dems.

[Clownkicker]

I get it. You're saying Trump's AG just appointed the most incompetent prosecutor he could find.

Is that what accounts for Durham wasting 4 years and millions of dollars in taxpayer money to get one measly conviction on an unrelated charge?

Leave it to johnforbes to make the silly claim that there are no conservatives in the US Justice Department that a Republican AG could appoint.

[johnforbes]

Weissmann was obviously biased, and for political reasons.

Wallace was apparently a RINO at some point, but degenerated into a leftist nut.

Clowntoker is nuttier than a Snickers bar.

[Clownkicker]

Durham was obviously biased, and for political reasons. A four-year-long investigation into a political enemy that uncovers nothing at all is proof of this.

johnforbes thinks that EVERY Republican is a RINO at some point, starting precisely when he first disagrees with them over something silly.

johnforbes is nuttier than a 500 acre California almond orchard.

[johnforbes]

I take no joy in Clown's almond remarks.

But that should not bar me from noting that Clown's physique resembles John Candy's.