What to make of the Durham filing?
- Thread starter Courtsensetwo
- Start date
Your link is 2 years old..... lmao
Keep pushing your lies - or take it up with Factcheck.com
- Paychecks grew faster than inflation. Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 8.7% after inflation.
Trump's Final Numbers - FactCheck.org
Statistical indicators of President Trump's four years in office.
www.factcheck.org
Yeah, it destroys excellence. Crappy teachers are on the same pay scale as the excellent ones.
I've never understood why anyone is worried how much someone else makes. Small penis envy I guess. It's really weird.
Pay is literally all the teachers union does for teachers in Indiana. If that's all people can complain about with a union, they're really digging.
From cray's own posting, he has no education, no family, and no real marketable skills. He hangs out on this board in a desperate attempt to meet people IRL. He is an insecure keyboard warrior with few life experiences beyond his home town.
This deserves its own thread...It comes from many directions but heres a politician clearly lying.
I need to find her video, which I watched, but that would piss off anyone who followed her thinking Elon and some others paid zero WTF. This is where people get mislead and confused about sh!t.
I'm not worried about what teachers make. Well, I am - I think the good ones should make more.
What I'm "worried about" is the rigid pay scale. Very good teachers are paid the same as very bad teachers if they have the same degrees and experience and are teaching the same things.
My daughter and son-in-law had a fantastic biology teacher. They won many state and some national titles at science fairs. Her salary was capped. She couldn't make any more than the other bio teacher who let their kids slide.
I'm not anti-teacher. I'm anti-union, although I think some form of organization should take place. I just don't think they should dictate how much someone makes.
At any job, you will eventually cap out the pay structure. If you do that and you want to be paid more, you look for more lucrative opportunities at other locations. One is never stuck in a place of employment unless they want to be.
What's that got to do with unions?
Before unions, would you have told teachers "Hey, you're not making enough money? Go find another job."?
I could be wrong here, but if a teacher doesn't like the pay structure in Indiana, couldn't they get a job at a private school where unions don't apply?
I firmly believe that teachers aren't paid enough, but people are really reaching complaining about the Indiana teachers union.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
These are the people that complain of minimum wagers making too much money but have no issue with how much upper management makes.
Of course they can. But what I'm saying is, Unions stifle teacher excellence due to their pay structure.
Anyone can change jobs at any point - that's not the problem. It's not just teachers union - it's any union that insists everyone be paid on the same scale, without regard to performance. It's why car manufacturing has moved south and abandoned cities like Kokomo and Anderson.
Durham fires back heres the cribs...Actual court doc is at the bottom of the article
https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/04/durham-filing-clinton-sussmann-indictment/
“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham’s filing reads. “He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect. The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”
“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” the filing reads.
“The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways,” it continued.
Judge allows Durham to move forward with Sussmann prosecution
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Special Counsel John Durham can proceed with his office’s prosecution against a lawyer with ties to Democrats for making a false statement to the FBI in 2016…
thehill.com
Slowly but surely......Judge allows Durham to move forward with Sussmann prosecution
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Special Counsel John Durham can proceed with his office’s prosecution against a lawyer with ties to Democrats for making a false statement to the FBI in 2016…
This seems more procedural than anything indicative of even the validity of Sussman's argument... From your own link....Judge allows Durham to move forward with Sussmann prosecution
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Special Counsel John Durham can proceed with his office’s prosecution against a lawyer with ties to Democrats for making a false statement to the FBI in 2016…
Cooper, who was appointed by former President Obama, said in his decision Wednesday that the legal challenges raised by Sussmann’s lawyers against the Durham indictment may have some merit but cannot be fully ruled on in the pretrial stage.
“The battle lines thus are drawn, but the Court cannot resolve this standoff prior to trial,” the judge wrote in a six-page decision."
Are you this giddy over the number of judges/courts that have allowed Jean Carroll's law suit to proceed against Trump in every ruling since he initially attempted to have it dismissed? Including his attempt last month to file a counter suit, which was disallowed?
I won't be giddy until I see indictments. I added the Durham/Sussmann article and the Sussmann retaliation and now the judges answer. Sorry for keeping up and keeping people informed because the biggest scandal in history is being covered up by the msm. So a guy like me who has to dig for this shit posted it so others can keep up. F*ck the msm, the agenda, the political shills, and elites behind it. REAL Judgement awaits...
Biggest scandal in history? Oh bless your heart. You’ve got your hopes up real high, don’t you?
The FBI and DNC colluding to oust a President with a fake document and accusations isn't the biggest scandal in history?
What's a bigger one?
To me, when the DNC fined the Clinton campaign for not disclosing that they had in fact paid for the Steele dossier and not reported it, that was a bigger condemnation than has been reported.
The fact that 17 FBI and DOJ officials were fired which led to the Durham investigation should tell us that this thing is huge and multiple agencies are involved. That kind of sh!t should be ALL over the media. BUT I have to dig to find it. The absolute meltdown the left is having over twitter is proof. We have been taken over folks its not a joke anymore. Nothing to see here though all is well.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
The US Senate did confirm Russia worked to get Trump elected in 2016- the US Senate did not confirm Trump colluded with Russia- just to keep things fully factual
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
You should read the report.
Of course, I am sure he met with Russians in Trump tower in order to not collude
Trump recently asked Russia for assistance digging up dirt on the Bidens....so yea, if you think he isn't colluding with Russia, then I have ocean front property in Indiana to sell you
Last edited by a moderator:
Its like a confused child who's brain stays stuck and can't be taught. Appreciate the effort though.
The Mueller report also concluded it couldn’t exonerate Trump- but I bet my Dank smoking friend only recalls Trump saying he was cleared- you don’t seem dim just one sided in your interpretation of “facts” offered up by Trump and Tucker.
The Mueller team's job wasn't to exonerate Trump. It was to find out whether he colluded with Russia.
It didn't find enough evidence that supported that conclusion
In a trial, that's called 'not guilty'.
If you're saying that not finding enough evidence to convict anyone is not exonerating them, let me know the next time a jury verdict exonerates anyone.
You're beating a dead horse and too stupid to know you lost this argument 3 years ago.
"The FBI and DNC colluding to oust a President with a fake document and accusations isn't the biggest scandal in history?"
Where do you get "oust a President" with regards to the Sussman case? The interview (which Durham is basing his accusations about lying on) occurred in fall 2016, long before the election at a time when Clinton was at one of her highest popularity levels of the Campaign. Prior to Comey announcing the reopening of the investigation into emails in Oct 2016, Clinton enjoyed what was basically an insurmountable lead.
Most people attribute a large portion of the Clinton campaign's failure at the end to underestimating Trump's ultimate appeal to undecideds down the stretch and the Trump Campaign in general. This fictitious revision of history to suggest that the Clinton campaign was worried about Trump is a false narrative, esp in light of the overconfidence they displayed regarding the Blue wall in the Miidwest, where they largely ignored MI,WI and PA taking victory there for granted...
This is where his whole case (for Dunham) vs Sussman is suspect. The surveillance operation which initially picked up what they considered suspicious communications between Alfa bank and a server connected to the Trump org, was conducted by a firm put in place by Obama back in 2014 during the Russian invasion of Crimea. It had nothing to do with Trump, but was actually monitoring Alfa bank which had connections to Putin.
The first contact between Alfa and an email server (mail1.trump-email.com) connected to Trump Org showed up in March 2016. This security based article charts the various DNS look ups involving that server from 5/4/2016 to 9/21/2016, and by far the entities with the most entries were two separate IP addresses registered to Alfa Bank (Russia) at 39.26% and 38.61% respectively. This chart was submitted as part of a court filing from Sept 14, 2021...
You can read the entire story, but this is an aspect I found interesting connecting an IU Infomatics/ Computing Professor to the research group...
"L. Jean Camp, a professor at the Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, was among the first to publish some of the DNS data collected by the research group. In 2017, Alfa Bank sent Camp a series of threatening letters suggesting she was “a central figure” in the what the company would later claim was “malicious cyber activity targeting its computer network.” The letters and responses from her attorneys are published on her website.
Camp’s attorneys and Indiana University have managed to keep her from being deposed by both Alfa Bank and John H. Durham, the special counsel appointed by the Trump administration to look into the origins of the Russia investigation (although Camp said Alfa Bank was able to obtain certain emails through the school’s public records request policy).
“If MIT had had the commitment to academic freedom that Indiana University has shown throughout this entire process, Aaron Swartz would still be alive,” Camp said.
"Camp said she’s bothered that the Alfa Bank and Trump special counsel investigations have cast the researchers in such a sinister light, when many of those subpoenaed have spent a lifetime trying to make the Internet more secure."
At any rate, these are the folks Sussman represented in a legal capacity, and contrary to claims Dunham has made these folks did not consider the investigation involving the Trump server a "hoax"...
So rather than your revisionist history, let's let Mueller speak for himself...
"As you know, I made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May of this year. There are certain points that bear emphasis.
First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.
Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.
Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Now claiming that saying they did not make a determination is somehow "exonerating" him is some sort of Trumpian logic. Especially when Mueller commented frequently on how carefully they chose their words, and then proceeded to produce a document that repeatedly referred to the possibility that the President MAY HAVE committed the offense of obstruction.
Repeatedly saying that a person may have committed obstruction is essentially the opposite of exonerating someone...Mueller was clearly bothered by several of the actions Trump took...There is no way you would try and claim that a Prosecutor who repeatedly said the defendant "may have committed" murder was somehow exonerating the defendant of the crime of murder...
Cosmic you and your rhetoric.
I'm waiting till after may 16th starts. You can post all the crap you want. I've already heard from several sources Durham is being extremely careful and is working with limited resources. Regardless, 17 intelligence agents have already been fired over this investigation that are left wing political hacks. Take your left wing media reports and shove it up your butt. The left wing msm, fbi, cia, and doj is a serious problem in this country and unless its removed it will be our undoing. If you can't see that by now your blind.
Go Durham!!!!
I'm waiting till after may 16th starts. You can post all the crap you want. I've already heard from several sources Durham is being extremely careful and is working with limited resources. Regardless, 17 intelligence agents have already been fired over this investigation that are left wing political hacks. Take your left wing media reports and shove it up your butt. The left wing msm, fbi, cia, and doj is a serious problem in this country and unless its removed it will be our undoing. If you can't see that by now your blind.
Go Durham!!!!
So, Mueller himself said he found no evidence of collusion. Mueller can't bring himself to say it, so he dances around it.
As he said, there was no criminal conspiracy, which he and his team of Democrats were charged to find.
The rest is just you blowing smoke, as usual. Which is what bots do.
