Durham's investigation of the investigation

If it was limited a private tech firm looking into DSN hits from a private company, and they got the information legally, is this a crime?

 

If The clinton campaign did something illegal, it’s not excused because Trump did or said something

 

We’re here to discuss events and we proceed with what we find in the news. And, therein lies the rub:

“Someone” leaks a story about a “key individual” who “may have” done “something or other.”

Next - desperate to both fill the 24-hour news cycle AND be ahead of the game - the leaked story becomes the story and it’s not whether it’s true, it’s “How do you respond to allegations that…” or “what do you think about allegations that….?”

None of it matters if the initial issue is true - it matters how folks respond to it. By the time the “truth” (defined as objectively agreed on circumstances) comes out we’ve been on to the 50th iteration of the same type of thing. we’re living in the age of pure propaganda. Caveat emptor.

 

Worse than watergate! It’s so bad… wait… what is the alleged crime here? A lawyer lied?

All this shows is that both campaigns were digging for dirt (as we already well know). One campaign did it by engaging with Russian hackers who committed crimes (there is your watergate comparison!). The other campaign engaged with some tech researchers who looked at internet headers. I’m not saying what these tech guys did was definitely legal, but they didn’t “hack” or breech anything, they were looking at high level web data they had access too. Traffic patterns only. Seems to me it’s probably a bit if a grey area. Worse than Watergate? You can’t credibly say this if you were calling those Trump activities a “nothingburger”.

 

Lol, if you think any of these crooks will ever face consequences, doesn't matter what flavor they are. Just not going to happen.

 

Because you guys were on nonstop "we got him this time" witch hunts for FOUR YEARS.

 

Ran his sorry ass out of office though, didn’t we?

 

Again, When I read the article, no where does it say the compilation of DNS hits was obtained illegally, Sussmann brought the data to the FBI, so it’s hard to imagine he obtained it illegally… the only crime mentioned is that Sussman guy is accused of lying to the FBI by saying he wasn’t working for the Clinton Campaign, which he plead not guilty to?

Trying to equate a politician hiring people to dig up dirt on their opponent to a “criminal conspiracy” seems laughable.

 

This was my point in that other thread on the Durham investigation.

BTW this thread should be merged with the old one that had already been bumped, since it is discussing the exact same territory.

 

Yeah, those numbers were used in the NY post article to downplay that the volume of Trump Tower hits on a Russian DNS was unusual, but those numbers are way outside of normal.

 

Everything bad he says was in jest...ok..the fact that the hacking attempts began right after his jest are just a coincidence...kind of like the attacknon the capital..he was just kidding right

 

Right. They need to narrow the timeframe for that 3 million. How much of that was in NYC? 3 million isn’t a huge number anyway, over a 4 year period. Not for the entire country. So to have 1000 in one building, is sort of notable. Or at least this comparable doesn’t scream “nothing to see here”.

 

Didn't know Harry Reid posted posthumously.

 

No statute of limitations in the court of public opinion. The GOP still people convinced Hillary Clinton had something to do with Uranium One.

 

The article has zero allegations of wrong doing about Clinton other than the old news that someone not named Hillary lied to FBI. What am I missing in plain English? Seemed to be a bunch of innuendo but I’m open to considering some facts.

 

There was a great movie in the early. 80’s named Absence of Malice where government lawyers manipulated media to run a narrative. In the fictional movie, it did not end well for those involved. In the real life version almost 40 years later, I’m not so sure that Lady Justice will win

 

You’re joking right?

 

Great movie. Though I doubt many newspapers would have run the abortion story.
Newman’s revenge was classic

 

Wilford Brimley as the judge in that movie was great.

 

I believe we can all agree Hillary Clinton isn't the impetus for the investigation nor is charging Hillary Clinton with any criminal activity the objective. What I will say when it all comes out Hillary Clinton's chances of a 2024 run will be shattered.