Clinton campaign spied on Pres. Trump

[Bret Ripley]

48 Hours: Media Ignore Durham Investigation of Hillary Clinton’s Operatives Allegedly Spying on Trump

... continued for 48 hours to ignore the scandalous scandal.

Breitbart is running low on adjectives. Won't you help?

[ajax18]

Ben Shapiro put it this way.

If you're an internet company and your using your access to the Executive Office of the presidency and you're using that access in order to funnel that information to the political opponents of the president of the United States and then funnel that information back to the FBI and CIA in order to initiate action against the President of the United States for something you know is not true, that's criminal and that cost taxpayers untold millions of dollars. At the very least this is perjury or filling a false police report that resulted in tens of millions of dollars robbed from US taxpayers.

Imagine if Barack Obama had been elected president and it turns out that there was a largely ginned up scandal about how Barack Obama was actually working closely with the Iranians and how the Iranian regime was backing Barack actively. The Iranians wanted Barack Obama to win. It was important that everybody knew. They went to the FBI and the CIA with a dossier full of false information and they passed that information along to the FBI and the CIA. And then they had an internet company that was working with the executive office of the presidency since 2009 and they were monitoring DNS traffic between the Executive Office of the Presidency and the Iranian government and then they turn that information over to the FBI and CIA which use that information to initiate a four year long quest into uncovering the supposed connections between the Obama administration and Iran. Do you still think that is a nothin burger?

[Gadianton]

for something you know is not true, that's criminal

Ajax, you're talking about the president who has lied profusely about an election being stolen with 60+ BS legal cases all shot down and the people who lie with him, including you, knowing that the election wasn't stolen, but doubling and tripling down anyway in the hopes to make him a dictator. The guy even sold out his own VP for not trying to overturn election and place him as dictator against the will of the voting public. It's the single biggest spectacle of dishonesty I've ever seen in my life, and all in the name of God and freedom.

You have zero credibility to ever question anyone's honesty about anything. I'm happy to look at the data you've provided if somebody other than you, or anyone else who maintains the election was stolen believes it should be examined.

[Binger]

for something you know is not true, that's criminal

Ajax, you're talking about the president who has lied profusely about an election being stolen with 60+ BS legal cases all shot down and the people who lie with him, including you, knowing that the election wasn't stolen, but doubling and tripling down anyway in the hopes to make him a dictator. The guy even sold out his own VP for not trying to overturn election and place him as dictator against the will of the voting public. It's the single biggest spectacle of dishonesty I've ever seen in my life, and all in the name of God and freedom.

You have zero credibility to ever question anyone's honesty about anything. I'm happy to look at the data you've provided if somebody other than you, or anyone else who maintains the election was stolen believes it should be examined.

So, are you saying that allegations made by people that knowingly and illegally spied on a candidate and a president are more credible than the person who was spied on illegally? Is that your point?

[ajax18]

for something you know is not true, that's criminal

Ajax, you're talking about the president who has lied profusely about an election being stolen with 60+ BS legal cases all shot down and the people who lie with him, including you, knowing that the election wasn't stolen, but doubling and tripling down anyway in the hopes to make him a dictator. The guy even sold out his own VP for not trying to overturn election and place him as dictator against the will of the voting public. It's the single biggest spectacle of dishonesty I've ever seen in my life, and all in the name of God and freedom.

You have zero credibility to ever question anyone's honesty about anything. I'm happy to look at the data you've provided if somebody other than you, or anyone else who maintains the election was stolen believes it should be examined.

So because of something Trump did in the future, what the Democrats did in the past is justified?

[K Graham]

Ben Shapiro put it this way.

Shapiro is a disingenuous hack and a spinmeister. The way the right wing media has manipulated this "report" and misrepresenting it for their own agenda is downright hilarious. But this was all by design, for the sole purpose of deflecting attention away from the real stories.

Anything to take focus off of Trump's willful destruction of classified documents, his theft of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, or the report that he flushed classified docs down the toilet, or the report that he once waved classified documents to reporters just to brag about how important he is, or his former staffer saying that they were all afraid to hand Trump classified materials because they were afraid he'd negligently disclose the details or destroy them. Or his accounting firm dropping him as a client because the 10 years of financial reports are "worthless" and they don't want to be implicated in the upcoming indictment.

[K Graham]

tl;dr?

K said that Hillary did it but CNN hasn’t mentioned it so Trump is bad.

Then Schmo said something in Canadian about being in the same church as KGraham.

THIS RIGHT HERE SHADES. Consider this kind of useless and deflective input which sums up pretty much everyt6hing this nimrod has contributed to this forum.

[Atlanticmike]

tl;dr?

K said that Hillary did it but CNN hasn’t mentioned it so Trump is bad.

Then Schmo said something in Canadian about being in the same church as KGraham.

THIS RIGHT HERE SHADES. Consider this kind of useless and deflective input which sums up pretty much everyt6hing this nimrod has contributed to this forum.

Only progressive information is useful!! Ooooops, I meant progressive cult information. Everyone knew Hillary spied on Trump. Progressives are free to lie cheat and steal and apparently spy on whoever they want. That’s just common knowledge, ding dong.

[K Graham]

THIS RIGHT HERE SHADES. Consider this kind of useless and deflective input which sums up pretty much everyt6hing this nimrod has contributed to this forum.

Only progressive information is useful!! Ooooops, I meant progressive cult information. Everyone knew Hillary spied on Trump. Progressives are free to lie cheat and steal and apparently spy on whoever they want. That’s just common knowledge, ding dong.

Don't just assume everything that's informed and factual is "PROGRESSIVE!!"

And the only cult was ever in was this one:

215567675_1153506758462044_9211132801353726518_n.jpg (51.72 KiB) Viewed 255 times

[Res Ipsa]

Whatever the merits of the Durham indictment, the current furor is 100% fake outrage.

The Durham indictment was extensively reported on by the mainstream media when it was originally filed last year. The indictment is a single count brought against a single attorney that charges that the attorney told a specific lie to the FBI: that he did not meet with the FBI and provide them with certain documents on behalf of a client. The indictment alleges that, in fact, he did so on behalf of two clients: "Tech Executive 1": and the Clinton campaign. The latter is apparently based on the fact that the attorney billed time spent on the same subject matter to the Clinton Campaign, who was the client of another attorney in the same firm. As far as I know, we don't know when the alleged billing occurred, what it was exactly for, or how much of it there was. The attorney did represent Tech Executive 1 at the time, but contends that he took the information to the FBI on his own.

I will note that this is the kind of indictment the political right had a hissy fit about when similar charges were made in connection with the Mueller investigation.

What was recently filed was a motion to disqualify the defendant's law firm based on potential conflicts of interest. The motion isn't based on the merits of the claims against the attorney, but on the fact that the law firm representing him also represents or has represented other individuals or entities. What is odd about the motion is that it recites a broad range of factual claims that don't appear relevant to the motion. Most of the information isn't new, although a couple of alleged details are. It's not surprising at all that mainstream media didn't treat the motion to disqualify as newsworthy.

But the conservative media employed a typical strategy: misrepresented the filing as being some kind of big story based on new information, and then made the story all about a "liberal media" coverup. It's not like we haven't seen that movie before.

Whatever the facts are ultimately shown to be, the filing doesn't say what many conservative media figures and politicians claimed it said. If Durham has evidence of any other law breaking, he'll present it to a grand jury and an indictment may follow. All we've got to date is one count of lying to the FBI. And lots of alleged facts.

ETA: After reading the response to the motion, I was probably more generous to Durham than I should have been. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 37.0_1.pdf The motion was not to disqualify counsel, but to request the defendant to waive any potential conflicts of interest on the record. That's a new one on me. The defendant was happy to do so, raising the question of why the motion was necessary at all.