What a sad thread. @basso is like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to come and inevitably he never does. Funny … then awkward… then sad… finally pathetic.
What a **** sandwich John Durham is ... Bombshell NYT report reveals Bill Barr’s special counsel opened 'secret' financial crimes probe into Trump Special counsel Robert Durham, appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, uncovered possible financial crimes by Donald Trump but made no attempt to prosecute them, The New York Times reveals in massive, bombshell report published Thursday after a months-long investigation. “Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it,” The Times’ Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner report. The “potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes” came during a trip Barr and Durham, his special counsel, took together. They “decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore.” But, “Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.” That’s just one aspect of The Times’ extensive and disturbing report. It also reveals that there was little justification for Barr to install Durham as a special counsel to investigate what Trump wrongly maintained was an unjustifiable investigation into his ties to Russia. In fact, The Times “found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.” In another shocking revelation, The Times reports 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.” The Times does not explain how Durham obtained the Russian disinformation. “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.” Attorneys on Durham’s team apparently had significant qualms with his actions, leading at least two to resign. “There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known,” The Times reports. “The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)”
So, trump send his lackeys to Italy to ask them to help dissuade the Russia Russia hoax and they end up telling them they can link trump to a Russian and then nothing happens..............sounds about right
It is based on reporting from the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?searchResultPosition=1 How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry. t became a regular litany of grievances from President Donald J. 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 Mr. Trump, Attorney General William P. 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, Mr. Barr turned to a hard-nosed prosecutor named John H. Durham, and later granted him special counsel status to carry on after Mr. Trump left office. But after almost four years — far longer than the Russia investigation itself — Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr. Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation. Interviews by The Times with more than a dozen current and former officials have revealed an array of previously unreported episodes that show how the Durham inquiry became roiled by internal dissent and ethical disputes as it went unsuccessfully down one path after another even as Mr. Trump and Mr. Barr promoted a misleading narrative of its progress. Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it. More at link.
Right up there with Fox "News". But Alternet was only reporting on a NY Times story ... which I suspect you also do not consider reputable, no?
Yes, and it's the reason why the probe switched to a criminal probe with Barr having to go out of his way to change Durham's mandate. Without the proper criminal jurisdiction, Durham wouldn't have been able to personally make a charging decision on a crime, and he could have been fired or perhaps faced more serious consequences if it would have been found that he found evidence of a crime, and did not refer it. Durham changed his mandate for this very reason. Barr is a slimeball if there ever was one in government.
I mean it was never about Durham obviously as reporting is now showing. If the reporting is accurate, it was Barr really managing the investigation and using Durham’s prior credibility to shield his own machinations. So do I respect Durham… not really. Any respectable prosecutor would have went public or quit in protest to show the public that Barr was pulling the strings.
Durham was appointed at the very end of Trump's term. Barr's influence, if any, is minimal by this point.
LMFAO @basso LMFAO LMFAO @basso LMFAO Don’t worry buddy… The Great Pumpkin will be back next Halloween with more B E N G H A Z I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
