Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

  1. #1
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Durham Inquiry Appears to Wind Down as Grand Jury Expires

    The special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to examine the Russia investigation seems to be wrapping up its work with no further charges in store.

    By Katie Benner, Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage
    Sept. 14, 2022

    WASHINGTON — When John H. Durham was assigned by the Justice Department in 2019 to examine the origins of the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, President Donald J. Trump and his supporters expressed a belief that the inquiry would prove that a “deep state” conspiracy including top Obama-era officials had worked to sabotage him.

    Now Mr. Durham appears to be winding down his three-year inquiry without anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking. The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.

    Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote.

    After Mr. Durham’s team completes its report, it will be up to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to decide whether to make its findings public. The report will be Mr. Durham’s opportunity to present any evidence or conclusions that challenge the Justice Department’s basis for opening the investigation in 2016 into the links between Mr. Trump and Russia.

    The Justice Department declined to comment.

    Mr. Durham and his team used a grand jury in Washington to indict Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Sussmann was indicted last year on a charge of making a false statement to the F.B.I. at a meeting in which he shared a tip about potential connections between computers associated with Mr. Trump and a Kremlin-linked Russian bank. Mr. Sussmann was acquitted of that charge at trial in May.

    A grand jury based in the Eastern District of Virginia last year indicted a Russia analyst who had worked with Christopher Steele, a former British spy who was the author of a dossier of rumors and unproven assertions about Mr. Trump. The dossier played no role in the F.B.I.’s decision to begin examining the ties between Russia and the Trump campaign. It was used in an application to obtain a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign associate.

    The analyst, Igor Danchenko, who is accused of lying to federal investigators, goes on trial next month in Alexandria, Va.

    In the third case, Mr. Durham’s team negotiated a plea deal with an F.B.I. lawyer whom an inspector general had accused of doctoring an email used in preparation for a wiretap renewal application. The plea deal resulted in no prison time.

    Mr. Trump and his allies have long hoped that Mr. Durham would prosecute former F.B.I. and intelligence officials responsible for the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane. Mr. Trump has described the investigation as a witch hunt and accused the F.B.I. of spying on his presidential campaign.

    Last month, in the days after the F.B.I. obtained a search warrant to seize boxes of classified and other government documents he was keeping at his resort in Florida, Mr. Trump used social media to amplify the unsubstantiated idea that Mr. Durham had uncovered a vast political conspiracy by the Obama administration and the intelligence community to damage him. At the same time, the former president seemed to acknowledge a lowering of expectations, from indictments to a report.

    “The public is waiting ‘with bated breath’ for the Durham Report, which should reveal corruption at a level never seen before in our country,” Mr. Trump wrote.

    In May 2019, Mr. Durham was selected by the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, to review the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, an investigation that was eventually completed by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel appointed to oversee it. The Mueller report scrutinized numerous links between Trump campaign associates and Russia, but did not find a criminal conspiracy.

    Mr. Durham’s review eventually evolved into a criminal investigation, allowing him to issue grand jury subpoenas to gather documents and interview witnesses. Shortly before the 2020 election, Mr. Barr made him a special counsel, permitting him to stay in place even after Mr. Trump left office. Mr. Garland has met with the Durham team a handful of times, and a top official in the deputy attorney general’s office regularly checks in with Mr. Durham on the investigation’s progress.

    Early this year, Justice Department leadership asked Mr. Durham to issue a report on his findings in May. That timing slipped, and now Mr. Durham is aiming to submit his report to Mr. Garland after the election, the people familiar with the matter said.

    The assignment Mr. Barr gave to Mr. Durham faced difficulties from the beginning. To begin with, the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, was already conducting an exhaustive review of Crossfire Hurricane.

    In late 2019, Mr. Horowitz delivered a report that uncovered significant problems with the F.B.I.’s applications for wiretap orders targeting Carter A. Page, a former Trump campaign adviser with numerous ties to Russia. But it also concluded that the investigation as a whole had a proper legal basis, and that there was no evidence that “political bias or improper motivation” had led the F.B.I. to open it.

    Mr. Durham issued an unusual public statement saying without explanation that he disagreed with the inspector general report’s conclusion that Crossfire Hurricane had been properly opened. Mr. Horowitz later told Congress that Mr. Durham had told him he thought it should have been opened as a “preliminary” investigation rather than a “full” one. Mr. Horowitz’s investigation also discovered an F.B.I. lawyer’s doctoring of the email used in preparation for a wiretap renewal application. He referred the matter for prosecution, and Mr. Durham’s team negotiated the resulting plea deal.

    In an initial period, Mr. Durham seemed to be searching for signs of political bias among the F.B.I. officials Mr. Horowitz had already scrutinized and hunting for wrongdoing among intelligence agencies outside Mr. Horowitz’s jurisdiction. But those efforts did not result in charges. In 2020, a top prosecutor and longtime confidante of Mr. Durham at the U.S. attorney’s office in Connecticut abruptly quit the team.

    Although the charges Mr. Durham brought against both Mr. Sussmann and Mr. Danchenko last fall were narrow, Mr. Durham used the indictments to argue that the F.B.I. was deliberately ignoring information that cut against the idea that Mr. Trump and his associates had improperly worked with Russia. Mr. Durham’s team argued in court that Clinton campaign associates had misled people into thinking that Mr. Trump or his campaign associates had colluded with Russia, although it did not charge such a conspiracy. Mr. Durham accused Mr. Danchenko of lying to the F.B.I. in ways that made the Steele dossier seem more credible than it was.

    Mr. Horowitz’s report, however, showed that the F.B.I. had not opened the Russia investigation on the basis of the Steele dossier — contrary to claims by Mr. Trump’s supporters.

    The coming trial of Mr. Danchenko will give Mr. Durham another opportunity to scrutinize aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

    Andrew DeFilippis, a prosecutor who played a key role in the Sussmann case, has notified the court that he will not take part in the trial of Mr. Danchenko. Mr. DeFilippis has told colleagues that he is leaving for a job at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. Reached at his desk at the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan last week, Mr. DeFilippis declined to comment
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Thanks, Chip. I had forgotten about this. Trump's dump.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    So the real liars were Trump, Barr, and Durham.

    Lock 'em up!

    Acquittal of Russia Analyst Deals Final Blow to Trump-Era Prosecutor

    John H. Durham, the special counsel who investigated the Russia inquiry for more than three years, failed to develop any cases that resulted in convictions.


    Charlie Savage and Linda Qiu
    Oct. 18, 2022

    WASHINGTON — Igor Danchenko, an analyst who provided much of the research for a notorious dossier of unproven assertions and rumors about former President Donald J. Trump and Russia, was acquitted on Tuesday on four counts of lying to the F.B.I. about one of his sources.

    The verdict was a final blow to the politically charged criminal investigation by John H. Durham, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr three years ago to scour the F.B.I.’s inquiry into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia for any wrongdoing. Mr. Trump and his supporters had long insisted the Durham inquiry would prove a “deep state” conspiracy against him, but despite pursuing various such claims, Mr. Durham never charged any high-level government officials.

    Instead he developed two cases centered on the narrow charge of making false statements in outside efforts to scrutinize purported links between Mr. Trump and Russia. He crammed the indictments with extraneous material and insinuations that he thought Democrats had sought to frame Mr. Trump for collusion with Russia, though he did not charge any such conspiracy. While the cases were not as expansive as Trump supporters had expected, they nevertheless provided more fodder for grievances about the Russia investigation. But once the cases reached courtrooms, they both crumbled.

    The first accused Michael Sussmann, a cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Democrats, of lying to the F.B.I. when he shared a tip about possible cyberlinks between Mr. Trump and Russia. It ended in an acquittal in May.

    And even before the jurors unanimously found Mr. Danchenko not guilty after deliberating for a day, the judge overseeing the trial, Anthony Trenga, took the extraordinary step last week of acquitting him on a fifth such count. The prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence for that charge to even go to the jury, he said. Mr. Durham expressed disappointment in the verdict on Tuesday, issuing the same statement he had shared after Mr. Sussmann’s trial in May. “We respect the jury’s decision and thank them for their service,” he said.

    Stuart Sears, a lawyer for Mr. Danchenko, said the prosecution had been “a nightmare” for his client and his family. “We have known all along that Igor Danchenko was innocent and we are glad the American public knows that now too,” he said.

    During closing arguments in both the Sussmann and Danchenko cases, defense lawyers pointed to evidence they said showed that Mr. Durham and his team had lost their way, ignoring signs of serious flaws in their cases because they were so intent on convicting someone. “I submit to you that if this trial has proven anything, it’s that the special counsel’s investigation was focused on proving crimes at any cost as opposed to investigating whether any occurred,” Mr. Sears said on Monday.

    The prosecutorial results Mr. Durham produced in his three and a half years of investigating the Trump-Russia inquiry stood in contrast to what had been the highest-profile act of his career, when he led a special investigation of the C.I.A.’s Bush-era torture of terrorism detainees and destruction of videos of interrogation sessions. At the time, Mr. Durham had set a high bar for charges and for releasing information related to the investigation. Throughout his 2008-2012 investigation, he found no one he deemed worthy of indictment even though two detainees had died in the C.I.A.’s custody, and he fought a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to avoid disclosing to the public his findings and witness interview records.

    The Danchenko trial is likely to be Mr. Durham’s last courtroom act as a prosecutor. He is also expected to submit a final report to the Justice Department this year. The original accusations against Mr. Danchenko, an analyst who was born in Russia and is now based in the United States, centered on two of his sources for the so-called Steele dossier, a compendium of political opposition research that asserted that Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign was conspiring with Russia.

    The dossier was indirectly funded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. They paid a law firm, which paid a research firm, which in turn subcontracted to a firm run by Christopher Steele, a former British spy. Mr. Steele hired Mr. Danchenko to canvass contacts in Russia and Europe about Mr. Trump’s dealings in Russia. BuzzFeed published the document in January 2017, and it attracted widespread attention — particularly a salacious claim about a purported blackmail tape. But it became clear that it was not credible, in part because Mr. Danchenko himself told the F.B.I. that Mr. Steele had exaggerated his research, presenting uncorroborated speculation as fact.

    Mr. Trump and his supporters have frequently — and falsely — sought to conflate the dossier with the official investigation into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia. But a 2019 inspector general’s report established that the F.B.I. officials who opened the inquiry did not know about the dossier at the time, and the final report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, did not cite anything in it as evidence. The F.B.I. did, however, include portions of the dossier in applications to wiretap a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign. The inspector general report sharply criticized the F.B.I. for failing to tell the court in renewal applications that Mr. Danchenko had provided a reason to doubt the dossier’s credibility.

    Mr. Danchenko cooperated extensively with the F.B.I., testimony during the trial showed. At first, he discussed how he had learned the rumors while researching for Mr. Steele, and he later helped the bureau uncover unrelated Russian influence operations inside the United States. The bureau made him into a paid confidential informant.

    But Mr. Durham accused Mr. Danchenko of lying to the F.B.I. about two things. The first charge was denying that he had “talked” to Charles Dolan, a lobbyist with ties to Democrats, about material in the dossier. In a somewhat equivocal statement, Mr. Danchenko said he had not. But Mr. Durham uncovered an email in which Mr. Dolan had conveyed a minor claim about office politics in the Trump campaign that appeared in the dossier. An F.B.I. agent testified that what Mr. Danchenko said was literally true, since they had communicated about that particular rumor in an email. The judge acquitted Mr. Danchenko of that charge last week.

    The remaining four charges centered on Mr. Danchenko’s assertions that he received a call in July 2016 from a man who did not identify himself, but who Mr. Danchenko thought might have been Sergei Millian, a former president of the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce. The two agreed to meet, but the man never showed, Mr. Danchenko said. At the trial, prosecutors tried to cast doubt on whether any such call had happened and, if it did, whether Mr. Danchenko really believed at the time that it was Mr. Millian. But the evidence was insufficient to persuade the jury.

    Mr. Durham’s failure to secure convictions leaves his inquiry with only one courtroom achievement, but it was developed by different investigators. Mr. Durham’s team negotiated a guilty plea that resulted in no prison time for an F.B.I. lawyer who admitted doctoring an email used in a wiretap renewal application. But the inspector general’s inquiry uncovered that problem, gathered the evidence, and made the criminal referral.

    In his closing arguments on Monday, Mr. Durham denied that his appointment by Mr. Barr had been political and appeared to offer a broad defense of his investigation, asking the jury to revisit the origin of his work. Mr. Mueller’s report, Mr. Durham said, “concludes there’s no evidence of collusion here or conspiracy. Is it the wrong question to ask, well, then how did this get started?”

    While Mr. Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge any Trump associate in a criminal conspiracy with Russia, his report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that each expected to benefit from the other. And the inspector general report already showed how the Trump-Russia investigation started: After Moscow hacked Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks, a foreign diplomat shared that a Trump campaign adviser had previously bragged about an apparent offer by Russia to anonymously release information damaging to Hillary Clinton.

    Both the Sussmann and Danchenko cases produced a parallel criticism of Mr. Durham and his team: that in pursuing charges, they damaged national security. In the Sussmann matter, the Durham team brought intense pressure upon a group of cybersecurity experts who had generated the tip Mr. Sussmann conveyed to the F.B.I., which involved odd internet data they thought might suggest hidden communications between Mr. Trump and Russia. (The F.B.I. briefly looked at the data but dismissed their suspicions.) Lawyers for the data scientists said internet experts routinely tell the government about online security threats, but that Mr. Durham’s tactics would discourage people from speaking up in the future.

    In the Danchenko matter, an F.B.I. agent who was Mr. Danchenko’s handler testified that his network of contacts had offered unique insights into malign Russian influence operations the bureau had been unaware of. The agent, Kevin Helson, said the F.B.I. had established a squad based on Mr. Danchenko’s reporting. Mr. Helson added that other agents still ask him to relay questions to Mr. Danchenko, but he could no longer follow up with him.

    “Because the special counsel indicted him?” Mr. Sears asked.

    “Yes,” Mr. Helson replied.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/18/u...e=articleShare

  4. #4
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    An alternate, plausible take.

    Special Counsel John Durham made a calculated decision to transform his only criminal trials — of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann and Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko — into forums for telling the story of the FBI's pursuit of the unsubstantiated Russia collusion narrative.

    Before it was over, Durham dropped bombshell after bombshell, with most landing on the FBI rather than the defendants:

    * Hillary Clinton personally approved sharing the Russia collusion narrative against Trump in fall 2016 even though her campaign wasn't sure it was true, former campaign manager Robby Mook testified.

    * The FBI offered Christopher Steele a whopping $1 million if he could prove the sensational allegations in his dossier, but he didn't, FBI witnesses testified.

    * The FBI included allegations from the Steele dossier in its FISA application to spy on the Trump campaign even though it hadn't verified a single element of the dossier, an FBI analyst testified.

    * Danchenko was hired as a confidential human source and recommended for hundreds of thousands of dollars even though the FBI had concerns he was tied to Russian intelligence and had lied to the bureau.

    * A Clinton-friendly PR executive, Charles Dolan, testified he lied to Danchenko, who then passed that lie on to Steele's dossier and then lied about Dolan being a source of the allegation.

    * The FBI ignored the warnings of its own analyst that the allegations of collusion might be disinformation inserted by Russian intelligence.

    ---snip---

    Durham gave conservatives part of what they wanted, an airing of the FBI's stunning failures and misconduct in the politically tinged probe. But in the end Durham did not deliver a guilty verdict or the sort of accountability conservatives wanted, just the narrative.

    And Washington is left with the continuing divide about what to make of Russiagate: conservatives are more convinced than ever that it was a deep state plot to get Donald Trump, while liberals see some smoke from the evidence but without the fire of convictions.

    The next step, many experts have told Just the News, is to wait for Durham's final report, assuming he is finished with prosecutions.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  5. #5
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Garbage in, garbage out. Just the News is a rightwing website specializing in Republican spin and alternative facts. Founded by John Solomon.

    John F. Solomon is an American journalist who was a contributor to Fox News until late 2020.[1][2][3][4] He was formerly an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[5]

    Although he won a number of awards (including the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award) for his investigative journalism, in recent years he has been accused of magnifying small scandals, creating fake controversy,[6][7][8] and advancing conspiracy theories.[1][3][9] During the Donald Trump presidency, he advanced Trump-friendly stories including questioning reporting that women who had accused Trump of sexual harassment had also sought payments from partisan political donors[10] and questioning the legitimacy of criminal charges against Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.[11]

    He also played an important role in advancing conspiracy theories about unproven allegations of wrongdoing in Ukraine by Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Solomon's stories about the Bidens influenced Trump's fruitless attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into publicly launching an investigation into the elder Biden, an attempt that led to Trump's first impeachment.[4]

    In 2020 he launched the website Just the News.[12]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S...l_commentator)

  6. #6
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    As always, "whataboutism" the "shoot the messenger" fallacy is the first defense of your failed argument; and your peculiar indicator of your cognitive dissonance, which devolves further to "LOLs" and incoherent strings of text absurd pictures.

    I'll just chalk another "L" in your column.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    724Seney (October 20th, 2022)

  8. #7
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Incoherent babble.

    When you can't win on the facts, you always go for the cheap shot.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,187
    Thanks
    443
    Thanked 494 Times in 330 Posts
    Rep Power
    7

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Incoherent babble.

    When you can't win on the facts, you always go for the cheap shot.
    "Mirror mirror on the wall....."

  10. #9
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    Incoherent babble.

    When you can't win on the facts, you always go for the cheap shot.
    Facts?

    A blue whale's heart beats around 9 times per minute, and you can fit a basketball through some of its veins.

    The Mohs hardness scale is used for gems, Rockwell for metal, and Janka for wood.

    I win.

    See Chip, you don't grasp the notion of "facts" and "relevant facts". You didn't respond to any of the content of John Solomon's piece (and the relevant facts presented in it). You committed the logical fallacy of "shoot the messenger" (another relevant fact) with some "oooh, he's a right-winger" nonsense. You did this with the Peterson/Haidt conversation. "Oooh, Peterson said something about climate science!!!". A fact, but irrelevant; and another "shoot the messenger" fallacy.

    Now tell us another story about how awesome you are. Spit on any fascist doorknobs lately?

    You only seem to like the cheap shots when you're the one making them - but you suck at it.

    --edit--

    Just so there's no confusion, I've adopted a zero-tolerance position for you jackasses. Post sensibly, and I will too. Shitpost, and get it in return. Don't like it? Hit the ignore button again, proclaim it loudly like the petulant toddler with the pouty lip, and then show us you don't have the discipline to follow through (yet again). Makes me no difference.
    Last edited by dneal; October 20th, 2022 at 09:06 PM.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to dneal For This Useful Post:

    724Seney (October 20th, 2022)

  12. #10
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    I've done climate research. Collected samples. Analyzed data. Peterson knows nothing about it. Neither do you.

    I can recognize a liar, a shill, and a paid propagandist, like Solomon. Why did you link his garbage? It's a waste of time.

    Is that why you frequent Twitter and YouTube and sketchy websites?

    So you can find support for your delusions?

  13. #11
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    More logical fallacies, a "red herring" to be precise. We're not talking about climate, and neither were Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt. They were two published professors of psychology discussing the psychological effects of social media on children. Your contribution to the thread was a Guardian hack and a hit piece saying basically "he's not a climate scientist, so he knows nothing". Completely irrelevant, fallacious, and paid propaganda in the form of character assassination. Just your type of schtick, which you apparently can't recognize when it comes in your flavor of kook-aide.

    If you were half as smart as your narcissistic ego believes, you might consider that a psychologist has some idea of the complexity of human behavior, and the indeterminate amount of variables one has to consider in psychological research. His criticism was that climate science is similarly complex, and the confidence in the conclusions drawn might not have the level of certainty claimed. Is your science not subject to the normal scrutiny of other disciplines? I don't think so. If you do, you're no scientist - no matter how many ponds you've paddled around. Scientists don't libel others as "science deniers" for doing the very thing science demands: doubting. Trying to disprove a hypothesis.

    But back to Solomon. His 'propaganda' in the piece are facts, listed in bullet points. They came from court testimony, unless you want to claim all those documented liars (Clinton, Sussman, Danchenko, the FBI, etc...) were also lying in court. He concludes with opinions of how each side will react. Your cognitive dissonance can't even grasp it, so you label and libel. See 'crimestop' below.

    The NYT won a Pulitzer for their "Russia Collusion" reporting. At best, a colossal failure of fact-checking; but more likely the propaganda you claim to be able to identify. Note how casually the narrative shifts to "notorious dossier of unproven assertions and rumors about former President Donald J. Trump and Russia". What? Their other reporting was wrong? Has their Pulitzer been returned or revoked? Of course not. But you have unquestionable faith in their reporting. I question everyone and everything, particularly in today's hyper-charged political environment.

    It's fucking Orwellian, a charge everyone who is not on the far left has been leveling against the far left. RWW's and #walkaway liberals. Everyone. Recently another poster's favorite op-ed writer invoked it, as if it were a novel accusation, and completely oblivious to years of examples being pointed out by the other side. That op-ed writer claims to be a historian, who can't seem to see history. I think I'm seeing a trend.

    From 1984: Blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary." So yeah, about that Russia Collusion and how easy you hurl "Putin's puppet" still. Your NYT admits above "unproven assertions and rumors". But you assure us you can recognize liars, shills and propagandists; even though the facts demonstrate the opposite.

    It's not just Trump and Russians though. Consider how you chuckleheads vacillate between "Barr is a Trump stooge" and "Barr has integrity by not caving to Trump". Here it is in Orwellian terms: doublethink - The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

    Now let's move on to your next fallacy. "Twitter and YouTube and sketchy websites". More "shoot the messenger", and an implied argument from ridicule. Speaking of "seeing through liars, shills, and propagandists..." I see through your pseudo-arguments, but you just double down on them. Why do you think ISW cites Twitter? It's a microcosm of the developed world. It's open-source intelligence collection (primarily HUMINT). You can see what's happening, what people of all sorts are thinking, and more; in real time. You do have to be able to sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff, a skill you claim to possess even though you appear to prefer being spoon-fed it through opinion pieces. YouTube? more of the same, in video format. The NYT has a YouTube page and Twitter account. They post on both. How do you reconcile that? Since they're on those platforms, they're sketchy. Right?

    I don't find support for delusions. That's your gig, demonstrated repeatedly. Let's talk about Kant, Nazis and your google-fu. Let's talk about your posting of screenshots of google results. You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation, which you remain devoid of. Nearly every thread you participate in you distract from, usually to brag on yourself. And you accuse others of compensating for something? gimmeafuckingbreakalready (or "Alas!" - an archaic expression you, a self-proclaimed professional writer, overuse. Alas!!!). But I digress. Let's talk about 51 intel experts and a particular laptop, NYT and WashPost reporting on the eve of an election; and what everyone knew was true but one side now begrudgingly acknowledges (sometimes). Who is delusional?

    Now go find some stupid picture I will ridicule you with, halfwit.

    Other Orwellian terms that apply:

    duckspeak - To speak without thinking. Can be either good or bad, depending on who is speaking, and whether they are on your side.

    crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."

    bellyfeel - Full emotional understanding. Blind, enthusiastic acceptance of a concept.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  14. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    ... You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation...
    How did your fingers not drop off in protest when you wrote these egregious lies? The cognitive dissonance between these kinds of statements and the manner of your actual behavior on these back pages (and the fact that you have already stated multiple times that you enjoy "stirring up the idiots" here for "lulz") is astonishing. Talk about blackwhite....

  15. #13
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Nice to know you care.


  16. #14
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    ... You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation...
    How did your fingers not drop off in protest when you wrote these egregious lies? The cognitive dissonance between these kinds of statements and the manner of your actual behavior on these back pages (and the fact that you have already stated multiple times that you enjoy "stirring up the idiots" here for "lulz") is astonishing. Talk about blackwhite....
    Oh look. Another Forumsscheisser, Mr. Fuckety McFuckface, has arrived. We both knew you couldn't resist the drama.

    I'm afraid your thesis has no supporting evidence, making your claims empty. Color me surprised. Would you like me to list and link the threads you take an unprompted shit in? The for-sale one where you invented an opportunity to moan about your salary is one of my favorites.

    p.s.: I included 'bellyfeel' just for you.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  17. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    ... You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation...
    How did your fingers not drop off in protest when you wrote these egregious lies? The cognitive dissonance between these kinds of statements and the manner of your actual behavior on these back pages (and the fact that you have already stated multiple times that you enjoy "stirring up the idiots" here for "lulz") is astonishing. Talk about blackwhite....
    Oh look. Another Forumsscheisser, Mr. Fuckety McFuckface, has arrived. We both knew you couldn't resist the drama.

    I'm afraid your thesis has no supporting evidence, making your claims empty. Color me surprised. Would you like me to list and link the threads you take an unprompted shit in? The for-sale one where you invented an opportunity to moan about your salary is one of my favorites.

    p.s.: I included 'bellyfeel' just for you.
    I'm not sure why you are so angry. What are you seeking here that you don't get that you think that you are entitled to?

  18. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    1,187
    Thanks
    443
    Thanked 494 Times in 330 Posts
    Rep Power
    7

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    ... You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation...
    How did your fingers not drop off in protest when you wrote these egregious lies? The cognitive dissonance between these kinds of statements and the manner of your actual behavior on these back pages (and the fact that you have already stated multiple times that you enjoy "stirring up the idiots" here for "lulz") is astonishing. Talk about blackwhite....
    Oh look. Another Forumsscheisser, Mr. Fuckety McFuckface, has arrived. We both knew you couldn't resist the drama.

    I'm afraid your thesis has no supporting evidence, making your claims empty. Color me surprised. Would you like me to list and link the threads you take an unprompted shit in? The for-sale one where you invented an opportunity to moan about your salary is one of my favorites.

    p.s.: I included 'bellyfeel' just for you.
    I'm not sure why you are so angry. What are you seeking here that you don't get that you think that you are entitled to?
    I wonder where our resident psycho-analyst is?????? I have thought sure he'd have lit up his pipe and pontificated on this one by now.
    Oh well, in Lloyd's absence I'm glad to step in and provide you with the guidance you need.

    @TSherbs, this is so elementary I'm actually quite surprised you don't see it for yourself.
    The anger you sense (quite correctly) is not @dneal's, it is your own.
    @dneal speaks the truth...... and it infuriates you. But your ego just cannot manage that....... and so you "project" that anger you are feeling upon him.

    5 cents please..........

  19. #17
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSherbs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    ... You're the one only interested in "winning", apparently. I'm only interested in intelligent conversation...
    How did your fingers not drop off in protest when you wrote these egregious lies? The cognitive dissonance between these kinds of statements and the manner of your actual behavior on these back pages (and the fact that you have already stated multiple times that you enjoy "stirring up the idiots" here for "lulz") is astonishing. Talk about blackwhite....
    Oh look. Another Forumsscheisser, Mr. Fuckety McFuckface, has arrived. We both knew you couldn't resist the drama.

    I'm afraid your thesis has no supporting evidence, making your claims empty. Color me surprised. Would you like me to list and link the threads you take an unprompted shit in? The for-sale one where you invented an opportunity to moan about your salary is one of my favorites.

    p.s.: I included 'bellyfeel' just for you.
    I'm not sure why you are so angry. What are you seeking here that you don't get that you think that you are entitled to?
    Angry? Not at all. Sarcastic? Snide? Disdainful? Sure. Look above, I've already explained in the edit to post #9.

    I don't think I'm entitled to anything here, and I have no idea why that language comes to your mind; but I'm still seeking a return to normalcy. I've tried several approaches, but at this point I'm simply going to make it as miserable for the disruptors as they do for others. Same principle as before, but with much less restraint.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  20. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,658
    Thanks
    2,027
    Thanked 2,189 Times in 1,419 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Well, you're lashing out, or threatening to, for some reason. Usually that behavior is from unfulfilled expectations, especially when they are felt to be deserving or entitled.

    The road you are expressing here is not a road to "normalcy." It is a road to more tension, abrasiveness, deceit, and efforts to "win", which is what you accused Chip of only being interested in. You get as triggered as anyone else here, even if the triggered response isn't an angry one. You still fall into predictable patterns of response, with familiar refrains. You are perhaps no more in control of these responses than those you criticize and mock. I don't believe that you are capable of even interested--deeply--in any change here. You certainly don't sustain any modification of your posting behavior for very long. How sincerely should we take your request for change when you veil these statements with threats of reprisal? That is "normalcy"?

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to TSherbs For This Useful Post:

    Chuck Naill (October 22nd, 2022)

  22. #19
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,000
    Thanks
    2,402
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    I'm not rehashing this with you. I believe you have a skewed perspective. Present your evidence to support your accusations, and I'll entertain the argument. I can (and have repeatedly) document(ed) my position.
    "A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."

  23. #20
    Senior Member Chip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 1,079 Times in 632 Posts
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Re: Another Trump Failure: the Durham Waste

    Enough of this silliness.

    I have to beam up to the Lizard Command Vessel and start aiming the Jewish Space Lasers for the midterm elections.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •