CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel who for four years examined the FBI's investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign was conspiring with Moscow, condemned the bureau but had little new information in his report. https://t.co/clvWPnDQdE

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 15, 2023

dajo9 said:

---

Do Republicans ever tire of falling for the rope-a-dope?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/politics/hunter-biden-house-republicans-report.html

John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel who for four years examined the FBI's investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign was conspiring with Moscow, condemned the bureau but had little new information in his report. https://t.co/clvWPnDQdE

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 15, 2023

---

Senator Josh Hawley and Jesse Watters discuss the Obama Administration, the FBI, and the Justice Department falsely accusing the President of being a Russian agent and framing him for treason while covering up illegal foreign bribes made to the Clinton Foundation:

"The whole… pic.twitter.com/lR7LZqxmKF

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 16, 2023

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Jake who?

---

Tapper. It is literally at the top of this page.

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

bearister said:

---

For anyone who read Durham's Report:

1. What are his findings regarding the 100+ meetings between tRump affiliates and Russians during run up to 2016 Election?

2. If he doesn't address that issue, why not?

---

oski003 said:

---

bearister said:

---

For anyone who read Durham's Report:

1. What are his findings regarding the 100+ meetings between tRump affiliates and Russians during run up to 2016 Election?

2. If he doesn't address that issue, why not?

---

There weren't 100+ meetings. Your sources count passing by and saying hi as a "meeting.". It is ridiculous.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

BearHunter said:

---

Whatever happened to Nancy’s “cold hard evidence” of Trump colluding with Russia to influence our elections? Never forget what they took from us. pic.twitter.com/k3dRyxCcTP

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 16, 2023

Nancy needs a spanking. Bearister will volunteer.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

BearHunter said:

---

Adam Schiff has been awfully quiet today.

---

Adam Schiff ...
Told Americans he had Definitive Proof ...

He lied to Americans and the very people he represents. pic.twitter.com/mj9WceA2h6

— Lawyerforlaws (@lawyer4laws) May 15, 2023

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony?

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony?

---

We're done here.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Adam Schiff has been awfully quiet today.

---

Trying not to get sued by Trump.

Adam Schiff ...
Told Americans he had Definitive Proof ...

He lied to Americans and the very people he represents. pic.twitter.com/mj9WceA2h6

— Lawyerforlaws (@lawyer4laws) May 15, 2023

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony?

---

We're done here.

---

Let's be honest. You're done because you want so badly for there to be a crime but you can't explain how it is a crime. You think the special prosecutor's subjective judgment that the process was not perfect and they should not have made the subjective determination to progress the investigation should result in massive charges but there was no crime committed based on his report but maybe sloppy process and folks who had an opinion on Trump. Again, so what?

---

oski003 said:

---

bearister said:

---

For anyone who read Durham's Report:

1. What are his findings regarding the 100+ meetings between tRump affiliates and Russians during run up to 2016 Election?

2. If he doesn't address that issue, why not?

---

There weren't 100+ meetings. Your sources count passing by and saying hi as a "meeting.". It is ridiculous.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Jake Tapper weighs in

CNN's Jake Tapper and Evan Perez discuss the Durham Report, which suggested no new charges, despite determining that the FBI and DOJ should never have initiated their investigation into Donald Trump, which falsely accused the former President of being a Russian agent:

"The… pic.twitter.com/jBqECJdFcO

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) May 15, 2023

The gist

"Trump never should have been investigated in the first place"

---

Seems like a subjective judgment call as opposed to violation of law. Since no one appointed him to the role to make those subjective decisions, he judgment call does not override those of actual appointees who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed. He didn't find any. Isn't that the headline?

I think it is a relief that Trump actually didn't turn out to be a Russian agent even if the campaign was run by bunch of morons who made it seem like he was.

---

They all colluded to bring Trump down in the first place..that's the headline. He says it without saying it. "They went in with bias" lol....so they had an agenda to get him...just not illegally!! They were arresting damn near everyone associated to Trump. Flynn specifically before he was able to even start doing his job in the new Trump white house. They essentially set Flynn up to perjure himself, it was a complete bogus charge.

The FBI Set Flynn Up to Preserve the TrumpRussia Probe

The news media was in on it, continually uncritically spewing what the FBI/CIA was feeding them.

---

In order for there to be a collusion, there has be an agreement to commit a crime. What was the crime? Or was it that there was consensus on interpretation as to whether there was sufficient basis to progress the investigation? Are there black and white laws on what amount of evidence is sufficient to progress each step of the investigation? Was it that there were some folks at the FBI who didn't like Trump? Were there no one who like Trump? Did the special prosecutor state that the bias impacted their actions or did he conclude otherwise?

As I stated, these are subjective calls.

Now, if they "set" Flynn up for a crime he did not commit, that would be a crime. Why weren't any charges recommended? Maybe "set up" is not accurate?

---

Amazing how there's never any charges. Peter Strozk and Lisa Page? jesus christ.

---

Yes, but what did the report conclude on them other what we all knew about their dislike of Trump? Did they have the authority to progress the investigation?

How do you see this as an earth shaker and not be bother by the influence that had been exerted by Trump on the Secretary of State of Georgia?

I truly am on the side of law enforcement and don't want to make their difficult job that much harder by second guessing all their subjective decisions and playing Monday morning quarterback unless there was actually a crime committed.

---

Uhh Strozk was the lead investigator in the Russian probe dude, who promised his girlfriend Page that "we'll get Trump". This sh*t is a felony. There was a whole lot of felonies happening from this to election interference by the FBI's "Missteps".

Statement on Report by Special Counsel John Durhamhttps://t.co/lcow0ea3mG pic.twitter.com/T4vXqoOMrp

— FBI (@FBI) May 15, 2023

---

How is that a felony?

---

We're done here.

---

Let's be honest. You're done because you want so badly for there to be a crime but you can't explain how it is a crime. You think the special prosecutor's subjective judgment that the process was not perfect and they should not have made the subjective determination to progress the investigation should result in massive charges but there was no crime committed based on his report but maybe sloppy process and folks who had an opinion on Trump. Again, so what?

---

Let's start with Treason. The end. Don't start with "Let's be honest" when you have no intention of such a thing in the first place.

---

The author of this debunked 2016 Hillary Clinton lie is currently sitting inside of the White House as President Biden’s National Security Advisor. https://t.co/wwesyOvJSZ

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) May 15, 2023