(10-18-2022 03:36 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham



https://apple.news/AubvzO0V7S46p9DJftIaOCw

Awesome Go Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go Russia?
Danchenko was a trusted Russian informant, which the FBI testified to under oath.

“But Auten and Helson also described Danchenko as a trusted source of information on Russian influence activities that U.S. investigators mined for years — testimony that seemed to frustrate Durham.”

Menses, you appear to not understand what is going on. Best to sit this one out.

(10-19-2022 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ... which the FBI testified to under oath...

Which means pretty much nothing.

(10-19-2022 10:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ... which the FBI testified to under oath...

Which means pretty much nothing.

It means the FBI lied. If that Russian was a real double agent he would have not made it to the courthouse. He would have accidently fallen from a balcony 20 stories up.

(10-19-2022 06:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---Durham is never going to win a case against any Democrat operative in a corrupt 99% Democrat town like DC. DOJ officials know they can act with impunity and flaunt illegality when attacking Trump or any other Republican official. Of course, some seem to be oblivious to the obvious corruption within the DOJ, which the DNC now openly operates as its personal Secret political Gestapo.

And FWIW, cases brought by the government for things like this usually win 95% of the time. Durham lost them both.

But this was no surprise. If you all would have listened to @EmptyWheel like I told you, you would have known this. Durham was incompetent at everything other than wasting our money on an actual witch hunt.

Hey retard tell your friend conway the courthouse is in Alexandria Va. Do you know where that is located?

(10-19-2022 10:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:39 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ... which the FBI testified to under oath...

Which means pretty much nothing.

It means if you can prove otherwise, then step up & do so.

(10-19-2022 11:56 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 06:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---Durham is never going to win a case against any Democrat operative in a corrupt 99% Democrat town like DC. DOJ officials know they can act with impunity and flaunt illegality when attacking Trump or any other Republican official. Of course, some seem to be oblivious to the obvious corruption within the DOJ, which the DNC now openly operates as its personal Secret political Gestapo.

And FWIW, cases brought by the government for things like this usually win 95% of the time. Durham lost them both.

But this was no surprise. If you all would have listened to @EmptyWheel like I told you, you would have known this. Durham was incompetent at everything other than wasting our money on an actual witch hunt.

Hey retard tell your friend conway the courthouse is in Alexandria Va. Do you know where that is located?

Virginia. Like the name of it says it is.

(10-19-2022 12:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 11:56 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 06:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---Durham is never going to win a case against any Democrat operative in a corrupt 99% Democrat town like DC. DOJ officials know they can act with impunity and flaunt illegality when attacking Trump or any other Republican official. Of course, some seem to be oblivious to the obvious corruption within the DOJ, which the DNC now openly operates as its personal Secret political Gestapo.

And FWIW, cases brought by the government for things like this usually win 95% of the time. Durham lost them both.

But this was no surprise. If you all would have listened to @EmptyWheel like I told you, you would have known this. Durham was incompetent at everything other than wasting our money on an actual witch hunt.

Hey retard tell your friend conway the courthouse is in Alexandria Va. Do you know where that is located?

Virginia. Like the name of it says it is.

So it wasn't in the District of Columbia. Interesting.

By the way, how many people know the basis of the indictment for Danchenko?

Count 5 : "defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he believed that he had spoken to Chamber President-I
on the telephone, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, DANCHENKO never
spoke to Chamber President-I"

Count 4: "on or about October 24, 2017, the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he believed that he spoke to Chamber President-I on the telephone on more than one occasion, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, DANCHENKO never spoke to Chamber President-I"

Count 3: ", the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he "was under the impression" that a late July 2016 telephone call that he received was from Chamber President-I, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant
well knew, Chamber President-I never called DANCHENKO. "

Count 2: ", the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he received a late July 2016 telephone call from an individual who DANCHENKO believed was "probably" Chamber President-I, when in truth and in fact, and as
the defendant well knew, Chamber President-I never called DANCHENKO. "

The best for last --

Count 1: "the defendant denied to agents of the FBI that he had spoken with PR Executive-I about any material contained in the Company Reports, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, PR Executive I was the source for an allegation contained in a Company Report dated August 22, 2016 and was
otherwise involved in the events and information described in the reports. "

For Count 1, the Government stated that the question asked was 'have you ever talked with....'. Danchenko had only ever communicated via email. In the indictment, the Govt pressed that 'talked' does not mean 'talked' (as one could easily surmise), but 'talked' *really* means 'ever communicated with in any form'.

The FBI agent who asked Danchenko in 2017 about his contacts with the person had used the word “talked” in his question. Danchenko’s denial that he had talked with Dolan was “literally true,” because the word “talk” does not encompass email communications, the court ruled, citing the dictionary definition.

There is also a little nasty thing in the SCOTUS caselaw that says that one cannot be convicted for this crime when answering truthfully.

The judge also indicated that he had been inclined to dismiss all the charges, including the one dismissed, but felt it should go to the jury first.

And *this* is the best that Durham can do.....

Yeah, keep complaining about such a travesty of justice. Kind of looks like an overreach by Durham here.

(10-19-2022 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way, how many people know the basis of the indictment for Danchenko?

Count 5 : "defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he believed that he had spoken to Chamber President-I
on the telephone, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, DANCHENKO never
spoke to Chamber President-I"

Count 4: "on or about October 24, 2017, the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he believed that he spoke to Chamber President-I on the telephone on more than one occasion, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, DANCHENKO never spoke to Chamber President-I"

Count 3: ", the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he "was under the impression" that a late July 2016 telephone call that he received was from Chamber President-I, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant
well knew, Chamber President-I never called DANCHENKO. "

Count 2: ", the defendant stated to agents of the FBI that he received a late July 2016 telephone call from an individual who DANCHENKO believed was "probably" Chamber President-I, when in truth and in fact, and as
the defendant well knew, Chamber President-I never called DANCHENKO. "

The best for last --

Count 1: "the defendant denied to agents of the FBI that he had spoken with PR Executive-I about any material contained in the Company Reports, when in truth and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, PR Executive I was the source for an allegation contained in a Company Report dated August 22, 2016 and was
otherwise involved in the events and information described in the reports. "

For Count 1, the Government stated that the question asked was 'have you ever talked with....'. Danchenko had only ever communicated via email. In the indictment, the Govt pressed that 'talked' does not mean 'talked' (as one could easily surmise), but 'talked' *really* means 'ever communicated with in any form'.

The FBI agent who asked Danchenko in 2017 about his contacts with the person had used the word “talked” in his question. Danchenko’s denial that he had talked with Dolan was “literally true,” because the word “talk” does not encompass email communications, the court ruled, citing the dictionary definition.

There is also a little nasty thing in the SCOTUS caselaw that says that one cannot be convicted for this crime when answering truthfully.

The judge also indicated that he had been inclined to dismiss all the charges, including the one dismissed, but felt it should go to the jury first.

And *this* is the best that Durham can do.....

Yeah, keep complaining about such a travesty of justice. Kind of looks like an overreach by Durham here.

Yup. And if you followed @emptywheel's analysis of the entire Durham fiasco over the years, you know that Durham made incompetent blunder after incompetent blunder.

Some of you guys can't see the forest for the trees. John Solomon lays it out for you. This wasn't so much about nailing a low level guy but seeding the court record with facts on the FBI's misdeeds.

Quote:Special Counsel John Durham made a calculated decision to transform his only criminal trials — of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann and Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko — into forums for telling the story of the FBI's pursuit of the unsubstantiated Russia collusion narrative.

From pretrial motions and brutal cross-examinations of FBI witnesses to his parting words at the Danchenko trial, Durham telegraphed his disdain for the FBI's behavior to jurors in the courts of both law and public opinion.

The jury might very well conclude the FBI mishandled the Russia case, the veteran prosecutor declared Monday in his closing argument. "The government is not here to defend the FBI's performance in these matters," he added. Such comments gave license to jurors to acquit, as they did in the end.

Before it was over, Durham dropped bombshell after bombshell, with most landing on the FBI rather than the defendants:

- Hillary Clinton personally approved sharing the Russia collusion narrative against Trump in fall 2016 even though her campaign wasn't sure it was true, former campaign manager Robby Mook testified.

- The FBI offered Christopher Steele a whopping $1 million if he could prove the sensational allegations in his dossier, but he didn't, FBI witnesses testified.

- The FBI included allegations from the Steele dossier in its FISA application to spy on the Trump campaign even though it hadn't verified a single element of the dossier, an FBI analyst testified.

- Danchenko was hired as a confidential human source and recommended for hundreds of thousands of dollars even though the FBI had concerns he was tied to Russian intelligence and had lied to the bureau.

- A Clinton-friendly PR executive, Charles Dolan, testified he lied to Danchenko, who then passed that lie on to Steele's dossier and then lied about Dolan being a source of the allegation.

- The FBI ignored the warnings of its own analyst that the allegations of collusion might be disinformation inserted by Russian intelligence.


The tales of deceit, duplicity and disinformation, in the end, were too much for jurors to hold the two informers to the FBI — Sussmann and Danchenko — to account.

The forewoman for the Sussmann trial said prosecutors may have shown Sussmann lied but the jury felt it was a waste of their time to hold a trial. A juror for the Danchenko trial said jurors were mostly unanimous in acquitting Danchenko.

The moral of the story of the Durham trials is simple: jurors won't convict an FBI informer for providing the bureau a story that the bureau seemed to want even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Quote:That solution, according to experts as diverse as former House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes and retired FBI intelligence chief Kevin Brock, may start with the formation of a blue-ribbon independent commission much like the 1970s Church Committee in the Senate did to expose abuses of the J. Edgar Hoover era at the FBI and CIA.

"I just don't know if we have the congressional will, maybe we will come after November, to stand up such a committee because it's going to take leadership to put it together to implement it, and then to put brave individuals on it who aren't going to care about their political careers," former House Intelligence Committee investigative counsel Kash Patel said.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/r...ces-if-fbi


Does anybody else find it weird that the left, which doesn't like Law Enforcement, all of a sudden loves the FBI? I'm betting that, should the GOP win the House in the midterms and win the WH in 2024, if a proposal to break up the FBI was floated, the dems would fight tooth and nail against it.

Maybe we should have listened to Ron Paul years ago (appears to be somewhere around 1990).

Quote:Some of you guys can't see the forest for the trees. John Solomon lays it out for you. This wasn't so much about nailing a low level guy but seeding the court record with facts on the FBI's misdeeds.

Got -- it is all about seeding a court record with ancillary facts. For no particular purpose.

But they seeded that court record with ancillary facts. [Nicholas Cage with bee mask mode on] NOT THE SEEDED RECORD WITH ANCILLARY FACTS!!!!! [/end Nick Cage mode with bee mask on]

Chalk that prosecution up as a stunning and overpowering mark in the W column for 'seeding the record with ancillary facts that dont get a conviction'

Seems a pretty fing idiotic main goal in a criminal prosecution.

Look man, I agree that Hillary did some gnarly stuff, as did Perkins Coie and the DNC.

But the net result is just laughable if it wasnt so sad.

Durham massively overreached with Dashenko. Case closed. I mean, he seriously charged a guy for truthfully answering that he didnt 'talk' to someone when he didnt talk to him. Durham stretched that out to some weird ass thing where a truthful answer was an indictment count --- real puny horseshit stuff there. Wash, rinse, repeat for the rest of the charges.

This is the exact horseshit that was played on Carter Page and on General Flynn.

Oh, there's a reason for it but you, the lawyer can't fathom what it is.

(10-19-2022 07:09 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Oh, there's a reason for it but you, the lawyer can't fathom what it is.

Im not holding my breath on that ace numero uno end results of that stunning Machiavellian ploy of taking a full on ***** slap from a trial judge on a set of horseshit charges as being a win for 'seeding a record' somewhere.

That's fine. You do you.

(10-19-2022 07:38 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  That's fine. You do you.

I think I am going to advise any client that doesnt want to file suit on garbage facts --- they need to sue to seed the record, which I now take it is an ace number one goal.

Instead of making the case in prime one to win, go for that 'seeding the record' gold medal.

Cant wait for that 'seeding the record' strategy to topple the world. Lolz.

(10-19-2022 07:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 07:38 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  That's fine. You do you.

I think I am going to advise any client that doesnt want to file suit on garbage facts --- they need to sue to seed the record, which I now take it is an ace number one goal.

Instead of making the case in prime one to win, go for that 'seeding the record' gold medal.

Cant wait for that 'seeding the record' strategy to topple the world. Lolz.

But...but...but Just the News and the demoted piss tester told me otherwise!!!!

Seeding the record?

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(10-19-2022 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 12:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 11:56 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 06:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol---Durham is never going to win a case against any Democrat operative in a corrupt 99% Democrat town like DC. DOJ officials know they can act with impunity and flaunt illegality when attacking Trump or any other Republican official. Of course, some seem to be oblivious to the obvious corruption within the DOJ, which the DNC now openly operates as its personal Secret political Gestapo.

And FWIW, cases brought by the government for things like this usually win 95% of the time. Durham lost them both.

But this was no surprise. If you all would have listened to @EmptyWheel like I told you, you would have known this. Durham was incompetent at everything other than wasting our money on an actual witch hunt.

Hey retard tell your friend conway the courthouse is in Alexandria Va. Do you know where that is located?

Virginia. Like the name of it says it is.

So it wasn't in the District of Columbia. Interesting.

It's part of the metro area dipchit. You got fooled by the conway tweet. You assumed the court was 100 miles away from DC. You should simply apologize, take the L loser.