Durham Investigation Expands Its Scope

Getin the ring said:
yea, something like that :rofl2:

v4Z4PPs.gif
Click to expand...

Hahaha!
 
Durham spent millions and took 4 years. He kept the right-wingers dangling with unfulfilled promises. He had 2 trials and lost them both. So he writes a couple hundred pages of nothing but sloppy innuendo.
 
Nordberg said:
Durham spent millions and took 4 years. He kept the right-wingers dangling with unfulfilled promises. He had 2 trials and lost them both. So he writes a couple hundred pages of nothing but sloppy innuendo.
Click to expand...
All covered in the Horowitz report resulting in the one successful procedural conviction, too.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
What corruption? Durham couldn't find any.
Click to expand...

Yup. The entire summary of the Durham report is that he believes that one more step should have been taken before the investigation into Russia collusion should have been undertaken. He thinks that had the FBi took that first step and did an assessment before the launching the investigation and if that assessment then found the Investigation warranted, he would have no issue with it.

It is simply his opinion as to the process, that the top brass consider. At any time Leadership will make calls as to how many steps to take before investigating or indicting. Garland will do the same when with the Jack Smith investigations. And any of his prosecutors in his office, or any outside party assessing his decision making can disagree. That is fine. But it is still his call.

All Durham is saying here is 'I would have done it differently and added one more step'., He is NOT saying there was a scintality of wrongdoing or criminality in what was done.
 
QP! said:
Yup. The entire summary of the Durham report is that he believes that one more step should have been taken before the investigation into Russia collusion should have been undertaken. He thinks that had the FBi took that first step and did an assessment before the launching the investigation and if that assessment then found the Investigation warranted, he would have no issue with it.

It is simply his opinion as to the process, that the top brass consider. At any time Leadership will make calls as to how many steps to take before investigating or indicting. Garland will do the same when with the Jack Smith investigations. And any of his prosecutors in his office, or any outside party assessing his decision making can disagree. That is fine. But it is still his call.

All Durham is saying here is 'I would have done it differently and added one more step'., He is NOT saying there was a scintality of wrongdoing or criminality in what was done.
Click to expand...

His statements have to be paired to his trying to justify the 4 years he spent and the millions of dollars wasted. This was a complete waste.
 
Nordberg said:
His statements have to be paired to his trying to justify the 4 years he spent and the millions of dollars wasted. This was a complete waste.
Click to expand...

Yup.

the undeniable fact is that after 4+ years of searching he could find nothing to cite or charge that in any way demonstrated there was an ounce of merit behind Trumps assertion that this process was criminal or wrong. In the end his summary is 'I think they needed to take another step (Step 1) before going to step 2.'.

That is it. No crime. Not that they were wrong to do step 2. Just he thinks they needed a preliminary assessment step first.
 
Mr.Badguy said:
What corruption? Durham couldn't find any.
Click to expand...

Are you blind? Or just stupid? He found plenty, particularly within the FBI. Unless, of course, you believe we reside in the third world shit hole Democrats are desperate to create and think it's okay for the FBI to be partisan and try to overturn elections.
 
QP! said:
Yup. The entire summary of the Durham report is that he believes that one more step should have been taken before the investigation into Russia collusion should have been undertaken. He thinks that had the FBi took that first step and did an assessment before the launching the investigation and if that assessment then found the Investigation warranted, he would have no issue with it.

It is simply his opinion as to the process, that the top brass consider. At any time Leadership will make calls as to how many steps to take before investigating or indicting. Garland will do the same when with the Jack Smith investigations. And any of his prosecutors in his office, or any outside party assessing his decision making can disagree. That is fine. But it is still his call.

All Durham is saying here is 'I would have done it differently and added one more step'., He is NOT saying there was a scintality of wrongdoing or criminality in what was done.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Another low IQ idiot who voted for Biden and enjoys Democrat corruption.
 
Nordberg said:
His statements have to be paired to his trying to justify the 4 years he spent and the millions of dollars wasted. This was a complete waste.
Click to expand...

QP! said:
Yup.

the undeniable fact is that after 4+ years of searching he could find nothing to cite or charge that in any way demonstrated there was an ounce of merit behind Trumps assertion that this process was criminal or wrong. In the end his summary is 'I think they needed to take another step (Step 1) before going to step 2.'.

That is it. No crime. Not that they were wrong to do step 2. Just he thinks they needed a preliminary assessment step first.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Dumber and Dumb fuck in an echo chamber. :laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top