This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
A take from me: Assigning Durham to investigate Trump's Italian
financial crimes then not bringing charges is the equivalent of how the National Enquirer used to buy and bury stories unfavorable to Trump.
Money quote: "[A] monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same
flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role
in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in
court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation."
IKYABWAI
Tangent included at no extra charge:
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/03/monthslong.html
"Yes, “monthslong” is a word—a unit of written or spoken language—and
it’s not all that new."
This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.C1PQMdCaRPsqUTIpRAoqUjEVDbWJzw_WIziPQBO7tHBzlOJKg7-YXtbqMbcKU_VbpOSKyiDSEkBsfZsawAFTkS2d1Pi0ps2WcZ0wZjXnq5zdXO2PBgpsrEl02TzDxW_2Y7ABFxhRg1RyJyBmkF7B37DqlNe8HomBtssmKxHYBOevSmnQ63R8AmEqyShbhUVSKUszuuEDDRhs51dyBOsnc0g&smid=share-url
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=eUCA5pnrRkFMi5IZe8KUMn8Q_mSZsDDnliTRzB3gMth-Dbck83vLJ2ZCtPTPK4r1jsJT6rRY2ciLzu7ku1t5xxrjUTBTpTPbiAc43zUXkOnTPEq8IO__Z9lh-BY20ek4yNYyGO_
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
MINe109 wrote:
A take from me: Assigning Durham to investigate Trump's ItalianThat sentence, although soundly constructed and perfectly clear in meaning, contains a total of seven clauses. Want to bet our Shmoo cohort starts quibbling by the word "marked"?
financial crimes then not bringing charges is the equivalent of how the
National Enquirer used to buy and bury stories unfavorable to Trump.
Money quote: "[A] monthslong review by The New York Times found that the
main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same
flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role
in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in
court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation." >>
IKYABWAIIt's OK when a Shmoo does it...
I thought that word was hyphenated, but at least it doesn't have an apostrophe.
Tangent included at no extra charge:
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/03/monthslong.html
"Yes, “monthslong” is a word—a unit of written or spoken language—and
it’s not all that new."
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 8:01:37 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:C1PQMdCaRPsqUTIpRAoqUjEVDbWJzw_WIziPQBO7tHBzlOJKg7-YXtbqMbcKU_VbpOSKyiDSEkBsfZsawAFTkS2d1Pi0ps2WcZ0wZjXnq5zdXO2PBgpsrEl02TzDxW_2Y7ABFxhRg1RyJyBmkF7B37DqlNe8HomBtssmKxHYBOevSmnQ63R8AmEqyShbhUVSKUszuuEDDRhs51dyBOsnc0g&smid=share-url
This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=eUCA5pnrRkFMi5IZe8KUMn8Q_mSZsDDnliTRzB3gMth-Dbck83vLJ2ZCtPTPK4r1jsJT6rRY2ciLzu7ku1t5xxrjUTBTpTPbiAc43zUXkOnTPEq8IO__Z9lh-BY20ek4yNYyGO_
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
Just one question. Why would Durham need to look into this after Barr found nothing?
In any case the NYT has a history.
On 1/27/23 11:28 AM, ScottW wrote:C1PQMdCaRPsqUTIpRAoqUjEVDbWJzw_WIziPQBO7tHBzlOJKg7-YXtbqMbcKU_VbpOSKyiDSEkBsfZsawAFTkS2d1Pi0ps2WcZ0wZjXnq5zdXO2PBgpsrEl02TzDxW_2Y7ABFxhRg1RyJyBmkF7B37DqlNe8HomBtssmKxHYBOevSmnQ63R8AmEqyShbhUVSKUszuuEDDRhs51dyBOsnc0g&smid=share-url
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 8:01:37 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=eUCA5pnrRkFMi5IZe8KUMn8Q_mSZsDDnliTRzB3gMth-Dbck83vLJ2ZCtPTPK4r1jsJT6rRY2ciLzu7ku1t5xxrjUTBTpTPbiAc43zUXkOnTPEq8IO__Z9lh-BY20ek4yNYyGO_
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
Just one question. Why would Durham need to look into this after Barr found nothing?Barr didn't investigate so he couldn't have found anything. Besides, he couldn't find collusion in Mueller's report that plainly did.
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 10:30:12 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:C1PQMdCaRPsqUTIpRAoqUjEVDbWJzw_WIziPQBO7tHBzlOJKg7-YXtbqMbcKU_VbpOSKyiDSEkBsfZsawAFTkS2d1Pi0ps2WcZ0wZjXnq5zdXO2PBgpsrEl02TzDxW_2Y7ABFxhRg1RyJyBmkF7B37DqlNe8HomBtssmKxHYBOevSmnQ63R8AmEqyShbhUVSKUszuuEDDRhs51dyBOsnc0g&smid=share-url
On 1/27/23 11:28 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 8:01:37 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=eUCA5pnrRkFMi5IZe8KUMn8Q_mSZsDDnliTRzB3gMth-Dbck83vLJ2ZCtPTPK4r1jsJT6rRY2ciLzu7ku1t5xxrjUTBTpTPbiAc43zUXkOnTPEq8IO__Z9lh-BY20ek4yNYyGO_
Barr didn't investigate so he couldn't have found anything. Besides, he
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
Just one question. Why would Durham need to look into this after Barr found nothing?
couldn't find collusion in Mueller's report that plainly did.
So you're saying it's a rehash of a Meuller finding?
Why would Durham be obliged to do something Mueller & co. didn't?
This whole thing reeks of deflection from the torrent of bad news on Biden's classified material and the entire Biden family corruption.
Did you ever bother to see the brother of Joe claiming his name and being the privileged brother of someone allowed him to promise federal money for a school district if they supported his project?
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:C1PQMdCaRPsqUTIpRAoqUjEVDbWJzw_WIziPQBO7tHBzlOJKg7-YXtbqMbcKU_VbpOSKyiDSEkBsfZsawAFTkS2d1Pi0ps2WcZ0wZjXnq5zdXO2PBgpsrEl02TzDxW_2Y7ABFxhRg1RyJyBmkF7B37DqlNe8HomBtssmKxHYBOevSmnQ63R8AmEqyShbhUVSKUszuuEDDRhs51dyBOsnc0g&smid=share-url
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 10:30:12 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/27/23 11:28 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 8:01:37 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
This is an unlocked link for Scott's benefit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html?unlocked_article_code=eUCA5pnrRkFMi5IZe8KUMn8Q_mSZsDDnliTRzB3gMth-Dbck83vLJ2ZCtPTPK4r1jsJT6rRY2ciLzu7ku1t5xxrjUTBTpTPbiAc43zUXkOnTPEq8IO__Z9lh-BY20ek4yNYyGO_
Barr didn't investigate so he couldn't have found anything. Besides, he >> couldn't find collusion in Mueller's report that plainly did.
I'll bet he has a Foxy take before even reading it.
Just one question. Why would Durham need to look into this after Barr found nothing?
So you're saying it's a rehash of a Meuller finding?When people complain about your reading comprehension, this is the kind
of thing they point to.
However, I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Why would Durham be obliged to do something Mueller & co. didn't?He was assigned to investigate new allegations not available to Mueller,
who wasn't allowed to look at Trump's finances and he wrapped it up
before he would have been required to explain his decision in a special counsel's report.
This whole thing reeks of deflection from the torrent of bad news on Biden'sNo, it's inspired by Durham and Barr's actual conduct. The classified
classified material and the entire Biden family corruption.
stuff is just noise fed by the over-classification of government records
and ameliorated by the lack of malign intent on the part of Biden,
Pence, and whoever the next careless document handlers turn out to be.
Did you ever bother to see the brother of Joe claiming his name and being the
privileged brother of someone allowed him to promise federal money for a school district if they supported his project?
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.Dismissing credible journalism from the NYT: that's the real deflection
and it's ongoing.
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 7:29:34 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.Dismissing credible journalism from the NYT: that's the real deflection
and it's ongoing.
Pardon me for not taking the NYTs word on anything.
Have the source(s) step up. As far as I can tell their biggest
gripe was they didn't have an "ongoing investigation" claim to smear
Trump with.
If there was more to it....Garland can pursue it.
On 1/28/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 7:29:34 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.Dismissing credible journalism from the NYT: that's the real deflection >> and it's ongoing.
Pardon me for not taking the NYTs word on anything.It's journalism, not somebody's "word."
Have the source(s) step up. As far as I can tell their biggestThe biggest? Not the too-close relationship between Barr and the
gripe was they didn't have an "ongoing investigation" claim to smear
Trump with.
supposedly independent Durham? Or the pursuit of charges so flimsy prosecutors resigned?
FISA?
If there was more to it....Garland can pursue it.A dude on Twitter: "Imagine if Jack Smith met with Garland weekly to sip bourbon, and then asked the DoJ Inspector General to lie in a report
about his investigation into Jeffrey Clark, then found Biden committed a crime but covered it up. Because that’s what Durham did."
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/28/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 7:29:34 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's journalism, not somebody's "word."
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.Dismissing credible journalism from the NYT: that's the real deflection >>>> and it's ongoing.
Pardon me for not taking the NYTs word on anything.
Have the source(s) step up. As far as I can tell their biggestThe biggest? Not the too-close relationship between Barr and the
gripe was they didn't have an "ongoing investigation" claim to smear
Trump with.
supposedly independent Durham? Or the pursuit of charges so flimsy
prosecutors resigned?
All subjective claptrap IMO.
You want to look at flimsy charges....I give you Flynn.
Funny how no one resigned in protest...though they should have.
Not the pressure on the IG to change his report on FISA?
If there was more to it....Garland can pursue it.A dude on Twitter: "Imagine if Jack Smith met with Garland weekly to sip
bourbon, and then asked the DoJ Inspector General to lie in a report
about his investigation into Jeffrey Clark, then found Biden committed a
crime but covered it up. Because that’s what Durham did."
A dude on twitter? LoL. I found grass growing after some rain.
On 1/29/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/28/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 7:29:34 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:It's journalism, not somebody's "word."
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
What about that! And yes it's whataboutism going full circle.Dismissing credible journalism from the NYT: that's the real deflection >>>> and it's ongoing.
Pardon me for not taking the NYTs word on anything.
Have the source(s) step up. As far as I can tell their biggestThe biggest? Not the too-close relationship between Barr and the
gripe was they didn't have an "ongoing investigation" claim to smear
Trump with.
supposedly independent Durham? Or the pursuit of charges so flimsy
prosecutors resigned?
All subjective claptrap IMO.The prosecutors objectively resigned. Bourbon was objectively sipped. Trump's case objectively went nowhere.
You want to look at flimsy charges....I give you Flynn.He plead guilty, so not so flimsy.
Funny how no one resigned in protest...though they should have.
Also, he did worse than what he was
charged for.
Not the pressure on the IG to change his report on FISA?
If there was more to it....Garland can pursue it.A dude on Twitter: "Imagine if Jack Smith met with Garland weekly to sip >> bourbon, and then asked the DoJ Inspector General to lie in a report
about his investigation into Jeffrey Clark, then found Biden committed a >> crime but covered it up. Because that’s what Durham did."
A dude on twitter? LoL. I found grass growing after some rain.His idea is more important than his identity.
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 3:40:19 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 12:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 9:47:05 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/28/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 7:29:34 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/27/23 7:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
Pardon me for not taking the NYTs word on anything.It's journalism, not somebody's "word."
Have the source(s) step up. As far as I can tell their biggestThe biggest? Not the too-close relationship between Barr and the
gripe was they didn't have an "ongoing investigation" claim to smear >>> Trump with.
supposedly independent Durham? Or the pursuit of charges so flimsy
prosecutors resigned?
And the story weaved to tie it all together remains....subjective claptrap.All subjective claptrap IMO.The prosecutors objectively resigned. Bourbon was objectively sipped. Trump's case objectively went nowhere.
After they extorted the plea from him by threatening his kid.You want to look at flimsy charges....I give you Flynn.He plead guilty, so not so flimsy.
Funny how no one resigned in protest...though they should have.
Isn't that an abuse of power? How about witness tampering?
Also, he did worse than what he wasBS
charged for.
Not the pressure on the IG to change his report on FISA?
If there was more to it....Garland can pursue it.A dude on Twitter: "Imagine if Jack Smith met with Garland weekly to sip
bourbon, and then asked the DoJ Inspector General to lie in a report
about his investigation into Jeffrey Clark, then found Biden committed a
crime but covered it up. Because that’s what Durham did."
I'm worried about your mental health.A dude on twitter? LoL. I found grass growing after some rain.His idea is more important than his identity.
How do you like that idea?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:07:26 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,989 |