Jump to content

DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

26CornerBlitz
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Deranged Rhino
Deranged Rhino

Powell to 44:  https://sidneypowell.com/media/open-memorandum-to-barack-obama/

Golden Goat
Golden Goat
Hedge
Hedge

I feel like there just might be a pattern here.   

Posted Images

Buffalo_Gal All Pro

Buffalo_Gal

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Ah the NYT ... spinning, spinning, always spinning...
 

They do not state in this article that the reason Durham released a statement because the media was trying to create a false narrative on what the Horowitz report found. Just because the OIG found "no bias" (because no one confessed to him or wrote down "I have bias") and stated that an inquiry has a very low bar to be opened,  that does not mean things were a-ok. Shesh Quite the opposite when everyone named in the Horowitz report was handed over to Durham.
 

The whole article smacked Durham around for daring to cut off the DNC and "msm" (BIRM) narrative in its tracks. In the final third of the article (of course, after the lede and introductory paragraphs ) lists his background, his straight-shooter status, his legal wins, etc.
 

Durham Surprises Even Allies With Statement on F.B.I.’s Trump Case

The federal prosecutor leading a review of the origins of the Russia inquiry has a reputation for keeping his mouth shut. At a sensitive moment, he didn’t.
 

Mr. Horowitz had found that the F.B.I. acted appropriately in opening the inquiry in 2016 into whether the Trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly helped Russia influence the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor. In response, Mr. Durham, whose report is not expected to be complete for months, released a caveat-laden rebuttal: “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened.”
 

</snip>
 

The inspector general’s report makes no substantive reference to Mr. Durham’s investigation. But before the report’s release, Mr. Durham got into a sharp dispute with Mr. Horowitz’s team over a footnote in a draft of the report that seemed to imply that Mr. Durham agreed with all of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions, which he did not, according to people familiar with the matter. The footnote did not appear in the final version of the report.
 

</snip>
 

The potential explosiveness of Mr. Durham’s mission was further underscored by the disclosure that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference.
 

</snip>

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 4
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

Ah the NYT ... spinning, spinning, always spinning...
 

They do not state in this article that the reason Durham released a statement because the media was trying to create a false narrative on what the Horowitz report found. Just because the OIG found "no bias" (because no one confessed to him or wrote down "I have bias") and stated that an inquiry has a very low bar to be opened,  that does not mean things were a-ok. Shesh Quite the opposite when everyone named in the Horowitz report was handed over to Durham.
 

The whole article smacked Durham around for daring to cut off the DNC and "msm" (BIRM) narrative in its tracks. In the final third of the article (of course, after the lede and introductory paragraphs ) lists his background, his straight-shooter status, his legal wins, etc.
 

Durham Surprises Even Allies With Statement on F.B.I.’s Trump Case

The federal prosecutor leading a review of the origins of the Russia inquiry has a reputation for keeping his mouth shut. At a sensitive moment, he didn’t.
 

Mr. Horowitz had found that the F.B.I. acted appropriately in opening the inquiry in 2016 into whether the Trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly helped Russia influence the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor. In response, Mr. Durham, whose report is not expected to be complete for months, released a caveat-laden rebuttal: “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the F.B.I. case was opened.”
 

</snip>
 

The inspector general’s report makes no substantive reference to Mr. Durham’s investigation. But before the report’s release, Mr. Durham got into a sharp dispute with Mr. Horowitz’s team over a footnote in a draft of the report that seemed to imply that Mr. Durham agreed with all of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions, which he did not, according to people familiar with the matter. The footnote did not appear in the final version of the report.
 

</snip>
 

The potential explosiveness of Mr. Durham’s mission was further underscored by the disclosure that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference.
 

</snip>

 

Speaking of burying the lede...

 

Quote

whether the Trump campaign wittingly or unwittingly helped Russia influence the election

 

Is that the first time the Times has admitted the possibility that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia?

  • Like (+1) 1
Foxx All Pro

Foxx

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Speaking of burying the lede...

 

 

Is that the first time the Times has admitted the possibility that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia?

despite all the twitterverse claiming the Times is spinning here, i see very little in this article that does not speak to Durham being anything other than what his reputation says he is. tough, hardnosed and above all, fair.

  • Like (+1) 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Hall of Famer

OldTimeAFLGuy

Posted
Posted
On 12/24/2019 at 9:23 PM, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

People have gone back and forth the last few years wondering if she was in on it. Her retirement at this time is "curious," to say the least.

 

...garnish her pension..........

  • Like (+1) 1
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/carterwpage/status/1210313880737443841

What a self-serving arrogant c#ckknocker Brokaw is.  “I hope we all learned a lesson” followed by some self-serving bs about the Jewel family being paid off?  
 

The only lesson to be learned is that after he ruined RJs life, Brokaw went on to enjoy an embarrassment of riches while RJ was driven to an early grave. 

  • Like (+1) 4
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...