John Durham - Making a killing and finding nothing since 2018.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

He got caught when there were additional emails found at the last minute on somebody else’s laptop. Yes he had to make another choice but it was too late. He had already exonerated here in spite of the evidence. If more came out he would have been exposed big time. So he made his reopen statement followed quickly by closed again. This possibly did more significant damage to Hillary than any Facebook ads purchased by Russians. She did love Comey until then. Then he became just another person to blame for her poorly run campaign.  If he had done the right thing and recommended charges, dropped it in Lynch’s lap, he would have been Scott free and kept his job. But he just couldn’t do it. Another career ruined by fealty to the Clintons.

Make fun if you wish but this is very easy to see. 

I'll just take your word for it even though it defies logic and reality.

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Paying for a fake dossier, sending it public, spying on the campaign, tampering with emails, defrauding the fisa court are all corruption. Not to mention destroying subpoenaed emails bleach bit servers hammering mobile devices, improper safeguarding of classified materials to name a few. All corruption and/or crimes. You people seem to think that because a corrupt fbi director desiring to keep his job decided not to prosecute her ( make no mistake he would have thrown the book at us) that there is no crime or no evidence “found”. The evidence is there. Comey made a decision to risk his integrity because he wanted to keep his job when Hillary was elected.  It was a bad call that backfired on him.  Do you really think Hillary lover Peter Strzok interviewing her for a criminal investigation alone with her and Sheryl mills NOT under oath with no recording and no transcript was legit? I doubt you would accept Mueller and Trump alone in a room not under oath with no recording or transcript as a legit interview. 

 

Do you find it at all interesting that he supposedly "found" all this information, but didn't find enough to recommend charging someone with a crime?  Seeing what someone considers evidence of an activity and actual evidence of wrongdoing are not the same thing.  You have bought in hook line and sinker to what one faction is selling.

If you think Comey's actions helped Hillary, I'd like to know an example of what you consider damaging.  Since Comey's decision, two Republican AGs have come to the same conclusion.

[AU9377 4,960]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

He got caught when there were additional emails found at the last minute on somebody else’s laptop. Yes he had to make another choice but it was too late. He had already exonerated here in spite of the evidence. If more came out he would have been exposed big time. So he made his reopen statement followed quickly by closed again. This possibly did more significant damage to Hillary than any Facebook ads purchased by Russians. She did love Comey until then. Then he became just another person to blame for her poorly run campaign.  If he had done the right thing and recommended charges, dropped it in Lynch’s lap, he would have been Scott free and kept his job. But he just couldn’t do it. Another career ruined by fealty to the Clintons.

Make fun if you wish but this is very easy to see. 

Explain why Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions both came to the same conclusion.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Explain why Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions both came to the same conclusion.

Because they are all the same at that level.  Session was a total disappointment to me and Barr decided to not rock the boat and keep his status. Barr def did not want to reopen a case that in his mind was decided.   Different set of standards for us and them.

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Because they are all the same at that level.  Session was a total disappointment to me and Barr decided to not rock the boat and keep his status. Barr def did not want to reopen a case that in his mind was decided.   Different set of standards for us and them.

And there is no chance that they recognized that it was a political witch hunt and that nothing good would have come from prosecuting that type case?  The entire fascination with Hillary is really bizarre.   She was First Lady for 8 years, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.  She and Barbara Bush had gotten so close that they spoke at least once a week before she passed.  The idea that she is motivated by some desire to harm this country is just mind boggling.   God knows she has her faults, but being some greedy criminal enterprise is nothing more than a character that the far right has nurtured and grown since the 1990s.

History will remember her fondly.

Edited March 16, 2022 by AU9377

[DKW 86 7,426]

10 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Because they are all the same at that level.  Session was a total disappointment to me and Barr decided to not rock the boat and keep his status. Barr def did not want to reopen a case that in his mind was decided.   Different set of standards for us and them.

Sessions did exactly as he was bound to do by his oath as an officer of the court. You cant have it both ways.

[DKW 86 7,426]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

And there is no chance that they recognized that it was a political witch hunt and that nothing good would have come from prosecuting that type case?  The entire fascination with Hillary is really bizarre.   She was First Lady for 8 years, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State.  She and Barbara Bush had gotten so close that they spoke at least once a week before she passed.  The idea that she is motivated by some desire to harm this country is just mind boggling.   God knows she has her faults, but being some greedy criminal enterprise is nothing more than a character that the far right has nurtured and grown since the 1990s.

History will remember her fondly.

She is as she acts, an Elitist Pig that is always above the law. Her Whitewater billing records, her emails that just disappeared. and on and on. Blue MAGA suits you fine it seems.

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

She is as she acts, an Elitist Pig that is always above the law. Her Whitewater billing records, her emails that just disappeared. and on and on. Blue MAGA suits you fine it seems.

I'm not some big Hillary fan.  I just don't think we ever hear about most of the things she has been accused of if she isn't in the public eye.  Being high profile for as long as she has been has consequences.  I met Bill Clinton in 1992 in Columbus, GA.  The man is brilliant, even with his wandering hands etc.  He got a lot accomplished in his 8 years, including a balanced budget. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

She is as she acts, an Elitist Pig that is always above the law. Her Whitewater billing records, her emails that just disappeared. and on and on. Blue MAGA suits you fine it seems.

This is emotional garbage.  There are relatively few on the the left who believe that she is more solution than problem.

There are no, well very few, on the left equal to the nutjobs on who attend MAGA rallies.  Stop the nonsense.  It is killing your credibility.

 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

22 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not some big Hillary fan.  I just don't think we ever hear about most of the things she has been accused of if she isn't in the public eye.  Being high profile for as long as she has been has consequences.  I met Bill Clinton in 1992 in Columbus, GA.  The man is brilliant, even with his wandering hands etc.  He got a lot accomplished in his 8 years, including a balanced budget. 

Uh that was Newt Gingrich. Clinton just caved on the spending and took the win. Smartest move ever by a democrat. Maybe even garnered some NGs from Republican senators later on. Paid off for everybody. Win. Win.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Uh that was Newt Gingrich. Clinton just caved on the spending and took the win. Smartest move ever by a democrat. Maybe even garnered some NGs from Republican senators later on. Paid off for everybody. Win. Win.

Wonder why he could not help balance the budget when Reagan and H.W. Bush were president?

Yes, Newt was a great guy until he had to resign over an ethics violation.  Thank goodness Dennis Hastert, a man of character, was ready to replace him.

Clinton's largest budget surpluses occurred AFTER Gingrich had resigned.

 

 

[AU9377 4,960]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Uh that was Newt Gingrich. Clinton just caved on the spending and took the win. Smartest move ever by a democrat. Maybe even garnered some NGs from Republican senators later on. Paid off for everybody. Win. Win.

Good ole Newt.... Sleeping with his secretary while his wife fights cancer and still finds the time to hypocritically denounce someone else's morality.

As for the other.... Breitbart and many on the right want so desperately to re-write history.  Yes, Clinton worked with Republicans to balance the budget.  Imagine that, a President doing something by way of compromise....what a novel thought.

Clinton submitted the first balanced budget proposal in over 30 years in 1997. Clinton's last 4 budgets were balanced budgets.

This is what the Clinton years reflected:

President Bill Clinton

Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1% decrease in total debt.

 

• FY 2001: $128 billion surplus
• FY 2000: $236 billion surplus
• FY 1999: $126 billion surplus
• FY 1998: $69 billion surplus
• FY 1997: $22 billion deficit
• FY 1996: $107 billion deficit
• FY 1995: $164 billion deficit
• FY 1994: $203 billion deficit

Edited March 16, 2022 by AU9377

[jj3jordan 2,053]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Wonder why he could not help balance the budget when Reagan and H.W. Bush were president?

Yes, Newt was a great guy until he had to resign over an ethics violation.  Thank goodness Dennis Hastert, a man of character, was ready to replace him.

Clinton's largest budget surpluses occurred AFTER Gingrich had resigned.

 

 

Not that I approve of excessive spending, but Reagan was forced to rebuild the country that Carter had worked so hard to destroy. I personally saw the damage Carter did to the military since I went on active duty in 1981.  By 1989 Reagan had defeated the USSR without firing a shot.  HW was no conservative but that's easy. Both houses were democrat majorities during that time.

I wasn't aware democrats cared anything about ethics, so why you even bring it up? The truth is Gingrich pushed Clinton to sign balanced budgets. It is just a fact. Nothing else needs to be said about his character or Hastert. I wish we had continued with balanced budgets. It is important to operate within your means at all levels. It can be done but no one has the will to do it.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Good ole Newt.... Sleeping with his secretary while his wife fights cancer and still finds the time to hypocritically denounce someone else's morality.

As for the other.... Breitbart and many on the right want so desperately to re-write history.  Yes, Clinton worked with Republicans to balance the budget.  Imagine that, a President doing something by way of compromise....what a novel thought.

Clinton submitted the first balanced budget proposal in over 30 years in 1997. Clinton's last 4 budgets were balanced budgets.

This is what the Clinton years reflected:

President Bill Clinton

Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1% decrease in total debt.

 

• FY 2001: $128 billion surplus
• FY 2000: $236 billion surplus
• FY 1999: $126 billion surplus
• FY 1998: $69 billion surplus
• FY 1997: $22 billion deficit
• FY 1996: $107 billion deficit
• FY 1995: $164 billion deficit
• FY 1994: $203 billion deficit

The downward trend of the deficits and momentum that carried further into surpluses was clearly associated with Newts time as speaker.  The last two before he resigned 98-99 were his and the following two hasterts. 

For some reason you feel that sleeping around is bad but the president at the time is the master of sleeping around. You really want to go there?

Yes, imagine a president doing something by way of compromise. Both Bush's did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. Seems the first guy to say no compromise we won elections have consequences was lord Obama.  Trump gladly would compromise, its all he ever did as a businessman. He was willing to do so against the wishes of his own party. So don't trumpet clintons compromise as a banner deal without looking at the others.

Not sure why you bring up Breitbart. What is being rewritten?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Not that I approve of excessive spending, but Reagan was forced to rebuild the country that Carter had worked so hard to destroy. I personally saw the damage Carter did to the military since I went on active duty in 1981.  By 1989 Reagan had defeated the USSR without firing a shot.  HW was no conservative but that's easy. Both houses were democrat majorities during that time.

I wasn't aware democrats cared anything about ethics, so why you even bring it up? The truth is Gingrich pushed Clinton to sign balanced budgets. It is just a fact. Nothing else needs to be said about his character or Hastert. I wish we had continued with balanced budgets. It is important to operate within your means at all levels. It can be done but no one has the will to do it.

Factually incorrect. 

Carter did not damage the economy.   The economy was struggling when he took office.  He refused to borrow and spend.  In other words, he was not going to use debt to buy a good economy.  In this case, he was too conservative.

Reagan, the "conservative", tripled our debt buying a better economy.  Anyone could have done that.

Yes, the best thing Reagan did was his handling of the cold war.  However, as every conservative knows, communism will fall under it's own weight.  You failed to mention incredible corruption of the Iran/Contra scandal.  Reagan, Poindexter, Secord, North did real damage to our military.

How did Carter "damage the military".  If I remember correctly, he never cut their budget and, never used them with the exception of the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.  In that case, he praised the effort and, shouldered the entire blame for the failure of the mission.

The Democrats are currently the more ethical party.  Democrats at least talk about campaign finance reform, social programs, limiting lobbying.  Granted, there are many who are corrupt and purely self-serving.  However, at the moment, Republican politicians are roughly the equivalent of organized crime.  No one is better at monetizing government power.

I'm sure you will see this as partisan.  It is not.  Your one-sided view of politics will make any other point of view seem like pushback.  Let's get all of the facts on the table and, make more honest, logical assessments.

[AU9377 4,960]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The downward trend of the deficits and momentum that carried further into surpluses was clearly associated with Newts time as speaker.  The last two before he resigned 98-99 were his and the following two hasterts. 

For some reason you feel that sleeping around is bad but the president at the time is the master of sleeping around. You really want to go there?

Yes, imagine a president doing something by way of compromise. Both Bush's did it. Reagan did it. Clinton did it. Seems the first guy to say no compromise we won elections have consequences was lord Obama.  Trump gladly would compromise, its all he ever did as a businessman. He was willing to do so against the wishes of his own party. So don't trumpet clintons compromise as a banner deal without looking at the others.

Not sure why you bring up Breitbart. What is being rewritten?

Please, the Republicans treated Obama like trash for no good reason.  They were vocal about not having any interest in working with him. He wasn't a radical President, but some are too blind to actually see that fact. 

My pointing out Newt's hypocrisy is not me being judgmental.  I don't care that Bill got head in the Oval.  I also don't care what Newt was doing at home.  I do care that one of the two had such a low threshold of integrity that he went for the throat of his political adversary while behaving worse in his own life.  That would be Newt.

Do you realize that the President introduces a budget and from that budget debate begins? Ya know, I'm just a bill, on capitol hill etc etc....

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Please, the Republicans treated Obama like trash for no good reason.  They were vocal about not having any interest in working with him. He wasn't a radical President, but some are too blind to actually see that fact. 

My pointing out Newt's hypocrisy is not me being judgmental.  I don't care that Bill got head in the Oval.  I also don't care what Newt was doing at home.  I do care that one of the two had such a low threshold of integrity that he went for the throat of his political adversary while behaving worse in his own life.  That would be Newt.

Do you realize that the President introduces a budget and from that budget debate begins? Ya know, I'm just a bill, on capitol hill etc etc....

You do not have to defend your statement about Gingrich.  You are not the one who told him to run on a platform that included,,,    FAMILY VALUES.

I have no problem with what people do with their private lives.  However, if you run on family values, you should probably live up to it.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Factually incorrect. 

Carter did not damage the economy.   The economy was struggling when he took office.  He refused to borrow and spend.  In other words, he was not going to use debt to buy a good economy.  In this case, he was too conservative.

Reagan, the "conservative", tripled our debt buying a better economy.  Anyone could have done that.

Yes, the best thing Reagan did was his handling of the cold war.  However, as every conservative knows, communism will fall under it's own weight.  You failed to mention incredible corruption of the Iran/Contra scandal.  Reagan, Poindexter, Secord, North did real damage to our military.

How did Carter "damage the military".  If I remember correctly, he never cut their budget and, never used them with the exception of the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.  In that case, he praised the effort and, shouldered the entire blame for the failure of the mission.

The Democrats are currently the more ethical party.  Democrats at least talk about campaign finance reform, social programs, limiting lobbying.  Granted, there are many who are corrupt and purely self-serving.  However, at the moment, Republican politicians are roughly the equivalent of organized crime.  No one is better at monetizing government power.

I'm sure you will see this as partisan.  It is not.  Your one-sided view of politics will make any other point of view seem like pushback.  Let's get all of the facts on the table and, make more honest, logical assessments.

Carter cut training and logistics in the military. Flying wings and ground forces failed numerous operational readiness inspections due to his neglect.  Our armed forces were not combat ready. I was there. It took a a while but we got back to combat readiness under Reagan. Yes the rescue mission was tragic but a reflection on the readiness I spoke of earlier. 
 

It’s laughable that you think Carter did not damage the economy. Inflation gas

prices and shortages, interest rates outrageous, economic malaise. Nice try painting Carter as anything but a failure.  PHD in nuclear engineering but raising peanuts.  
 

Reagan armed contras against Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. It’s all dirty but we were on the right side. 
 

More ethical. LOL  You are right though democrats do talk about social programs. They just lie about their goals. Keep them dependent on the government and remind them who pays for their continuous poverty. Republican want to lift people out of poverty and make successes of them. Democrats don’t. They just want voters. 

[AU9377 4,960]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Carter cut training and logistics in the military. Flying wings and ground forces failed numerous operational readiness inspections due to his neglect.  Our armed forces were not combat ready. I was there. It took a a while but we got back to combat readiness under Reagan. Yes the rescue mission was tragic but a reflection on the readiness I spoke of earlier. 
 

It’s laughable that you think Carter did not damage the economy. Inflation gas

prices and shortages, interest rates outrageous, economic malaise. Nice try painting Carter as anything but a failure.  PHD in nuclear engineering but raising peanuts.  
 

Reagan armed contras against Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega. It’s all dirty but we were on the right side. 
 

More ethical. LOL  You are right though democrats do talk about social programs. They just lie about their goals. Keep them dependent on the government and remind them who pays for their continuous poverty. Republican want to lift people out of poverty and make successes of them. Democrats don’t. They just want voters. 

It isn't as though Jimmy Carter was selling peanuts off the back of his pickup.  He had also been governor of Georgia.  I'll be the first to admit that the country needed someone with Reagan's personality when he was elected, but that doesn't mean that we should criticize Carter for being too honest, a genuine Christian man, being too educated or returning home to his family farm.  When did those attributes make someone undesirable as a leader?

[DKW 86 7,426]

On 3/15/2022 at 3:12 PM, AU9377 said:

Do you find it at all interesting that he supposedly "found" all this information, but didn't find enough to recommend charging someone with a crime?  Seeing what someone considers evidence of an activity and actual evidence of wrongdoing are not the same thing.  You have bought in hook line and sinker to what one faction is selling.

If you think Comey's actions helped Hillary, I'd like to know an example of what you consider damaging.  Since Comey's decision, two Republican AGs have come to the same conclusion.

Man, you win the weaselly posting there. He asked you a question or two you do not have the heart to answer. Do you think YOU would have been given a chance to TESTIFY NOT UNDER OATH? REALLY????? On what basis do you make that claim? Do you not find it EXTREMELY UNUSUAL that HRC got to testify NOT UNDER OATH.  Did sending Strzok in there doing his best Ray Charles impersonation find anything? Well no, Of course it didnt. He was never supposed to find anything and that's how we got to her not being under oath. Everyone else in ths sordid affair was under oath BUT HER. Did Manafort, Flynn  et al get to testify NOT under oath? NO! What were they accused and ultimately found guilty of? Lying Under Oath to the FBI. But there is one way to make sure that someone is never found guilty of that... NEVER PUT THEM UNDER OATH.

You are so much MAGA there is not even words to describe it. If the FBI cant put people under oath, then what do we even need an FBI for? it would seem obvious to the most casual observer that this was obviously a political trick to get her off the hook. How many others get that kind of treatment? 

Edited March 17, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,426]

On 3/16/2022 at 11:29 PM, AU9377 said:

It isn't as though Jimmy Carter was selling peanuts off the back of his pickup.  He had also been governor of Georgia.  I'll be the first to admit that the country needed someone with Reagan's personality when he was elected, but that doesn't mean that we should criticize Carter for being too honest, a genuine Christian man, being too educated or returning home to his family farm.  When did those attributes make someone undesirable as a leader?

Again, he addresses what Carter did as President and you Again, change the subject. If you are asked a question, answer the damn question. I was in the USN under Carter. Carter did not give a **** about the enlisted people. He just flat didnt. He stopped a pay raise to get us off food stamps. Reagan passed it plus more. I will never forgive Carter for how poorly we were prepared while he was President. He slashed funding etc. and it bit him in the ass. Reagan came in and gave us the pay raise and I will forever remember that day. Now the Republican party is a ******* trump mess. But Reagan did what Carter would not. He showed respect to the Enlisted People that Carter spat on. trump was the worst President we had as far as character went, no doubt. but Carter was the worst as far as foreign policy. His idiocy in pissing on the Iranians when he took the Shah in caused the hostage taking. It was a response to his own poor decision making. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,426]

On 3/15/2022 at 12:17 PM, icanthearyou said:

But the Russians DID attempt to influence the election.  They are a real threat to national security.

Just because you got emotional over the political, rhetorical, entertainment news, doesn't mean we all did.  Your narrative is personal, it is not real.

I would still contend that, if there were anything nefarious going on here, the FBI's Russia investigation would have been what was publicized and, the Clinton investigation buried.  Considering that is the opposite of what happened, I doubt there is anything here but politics.  We will see. 

Then where are the Collusion, Sedition, and Treason charges that we heard about every single day, over and over for four years?????? Please show me just one...

Edited March 17, 2022 by DKW 86

[bigbird 60,561]

16 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Then where are the Collusion, Sedition, and Treason charges?

[DKW 86 7,426]

20 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not some big Hillary fan.  I just don't think we ever hear about most of the things she has been accused of if she isn't in the public eye.  Being high profile for as long as she has been has consequences.  I met Bill Clinton in 1992 in Columbus, GA.  The man is brilliant, even with his wandering hands etc.  He got a lot accomplished in his 8 years, including a balanced budget. 

How does Bill wonder in during a discussion of HRC? No, you are just HRC MAGA. Why did she get to testify to the FBI NOT UNDER OATH? Were Manafort, Flynn et al allowed to do that? Why not? Would you or I get to do that? How many people in the last 20 years got to testify NOT under oath to the FBI?

PLEASE FOCUS AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS....

Edited March 17, 2022 by DKW 86

[DKW 86 7,426]

16 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Factually incorrect. 

Carter did not damage the economy.   The economy was struggling when he took office.  He refused to borrow and spend.  In other words, he was not going to use debt to buy a good economy.  In this case, he was too conservative.

And the people suffered all four years. He never adjusted course. He did not try anything but failure.

Reagan, the "conservative", tripled our debt buying a better economy.  Anyone could have done that.

Then why didnt Carter?

Yes, the best thing Reagan did was his handling of the cold war.  However, as every conservative knows, communism will fall under it's own weight. 

It wasnt falling under Carter. They invaded Afghanistan and were active in Nicaragua and elsewhere. 

You failed to mention incredible corruption of the Iran/Contra scandal. 

TRUTH

Reagan, Poindexter, Secord, North did real damage to our military.

Not True...

How did Carter "damage the military".  If I remember correctly, he never cut their budget and, never used them with the exception of the failed attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.  In that case, he praised the effort and, shouldered the entire blame for the failure of the mission.

We were coming out of Vietnam. We were using equipment that was worn completely out and needed refits or replacements. We had ship after ship that could not deploy. We fought Vietnam extremely underfunded. All of our materiale was just in horrible shape. We were horribly underpaid. I could go on and on and I now know that none of this matters to you at all. It was just people in the military and we are all baby killers to some so why not keep us on food stamps like Carter did?

The Democrats are currently the more ethical party.  Democrats at least talk about campaign finance reform, social programs, limiting lobbying.  Granted, there are many who are corrupt and purely self-serving.  However, at the moment, Republican politicians are roughly the equivalent of organized crime.  No one is better at monetizing government power.

I dont know how this changes the damage that Carter did one iota.

I'm sure you will see this as partisan.  It is not.  Your one-sided view of politics will make any other point of view seem like pushback.  Let's get all of the facts on the table and, make more honest, logical assessments.

You are missing the second side of Carter. I know he has resurrected his rep AFTER leaving office. But he was four year trainwreck while in office. Reagan came in and rebuilt the military BECAUSE HE HAD TO. Carter did nothing and sneered at the enlisted suffering on FOOD STAMPS. An E5 married qualified for food stamps. I know, I was there and saw it first hand.

Edited March 17, 2022 by DKW 86