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"

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, his judgment call does not override those of actual appointees at the FBI who made the call. Unless I am mistaken, he was appointed to see if there were any crimes committed at the FBI. 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.

Jake who?

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.

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

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

---

"Rag that was in on it, uncritically questions itself."

DiabloWags said:

---

Jake who?

---

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

Obama knew The Trump Russia thing was a Clinton set up and went on pretending to the public that he knew nothing. RECEIPTS. Comey telling everybody don't write anything down.

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.

---

It's best to leave him alone, he had a bad today. Needs a Bud Light, like, right now.

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?

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.

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?

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? The Trump campaign was spied on by our own FBI/CIA because of a lie the Clinton campaign cooked up. Let's start there.

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

---

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.

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.

Durham's report finally answered the question: what sound does one hand clapping make?

This was the nothing burger of all nothing burgers and shows that Durham's entire investigation was a pointless exercise.

But just like the fake investigation that Trump asked Zelensky to announce, the entire purpose of the Durham investigation was fulfilled when it was announced. Trump wanted the investigation to fulfill a talking point for the 2020 election. Once he lost that election (by 8 million votes), Durham became irrelevant. They never expected this to result in any finding of wrongdoing or any convictions - it was all just MAGA smoke and mirrors.

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.

---

So, the same way Trumpers count Clinton's trip with Epstein to Africa as forty gazillion trips to Epstein Island?

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:

---

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.

---

Strzok and Page didn't break the law. But Trump's government may have and that is why Strzok is suing them.

Similar to Andrew McCabe suing the government and forcing them to give him his pension and benefits.

Do you guys ever tire of losing?

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:

---

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.

---

Trump's campaign manager was a Russian tool in Ukraine and was giving Trump polling data to Russian agents.

Adam Schiff has been awfully quiet today.

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? Did they plant evidence? Are you saying that the only people who may investigate Biden or his son are those who are their fans?

So, please what were the felonies they committed and why are they not charged? Why did the special prosecutor not even suggest any change to the process much less a charge for these "felonies"?

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:

---

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.

BearHunter said:

---

Adam Schiff has been awfully quiet today.

---

And you've posted 32 times today.
You sure seem agitated.

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?

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

---

Trumps campaign manager was a Russian tool in Ukraine and was giving Trump polling data to a Russian agent

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.

dajo9 said:

---

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

---

Trumps campaign manager was a Russian tool in Ukraine and was giving Trump polling data to a Russian agent

---

Imagine a politician getting sued for hyperbole against politicians on the other side. Both sides would have nothing to say.

Chuck Schumer has been awfully quiet today.

Paul Manafort has been awfully quiet today

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.

---

I was wrong. It was 140.

"Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition, according to a New York Times analysis.

The report of Robert S. Mueller III, released to the public on Thursday, revealed at least 30 more contacts beyond those previously known. However, the special counsel said, "the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."

Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians - The New York Times


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

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.

---

Treason? How so? Is Trump now America itself that making a decision to investigate him (but never rushing the White House with a noose) is treason? Was he charged? Was he forcibly removed? Again, Trump is not immune from investigation. No, it is not treason to investigate. It is not treason to investigate even if you have a political opinion on which candidate you prefer. Now, rushing the White House with a mob to stop him from exercising his constitutional duty may be treason.

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

Should we see what Hillary has been up to?