Either Horowitz is right in that the initial warrant and first renewal were legal or they weren’t.
The two material lies in this indictment are lame. I have a feeling that like the Sussmann indictment… it is going to disappoint you.
Nothing… because he doesn’t really have much.
And I know you guys are wanting something for Dolan… but from this indictment… it doesn’t look likely.
Stop wasting my time…schools over.
For other readers. This indictment reflects extreme bias on FBI part for taken out a FISA warrant on surveillance a member of Trump team using uncollaborated questionable sources. Durham admitted to such in this indictment of Danchenko.
That’s where true crime is at IMO.
Yer Funny
Then Horowitz is wrong?
Are the pee tapes real or not?
Good tweeter article
Remember all those Robert Mueller avatars…where are those libs now?
You didn’t read the indictment either…
Neither did you
Not going to. 5 counts of lying to FBI. Process crime I don’t believe in.
I told you progs what Steele did when this crap first broke. I used to work in that industry, he ain’t the first one I’ve seen.
Lot’s of interesting stuff in this article.
"His (DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz ) report states:
“We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications.
I hope they charge Samantha Powers…
Erika Thompson, Alexander Downer and Christian Cantor
The judge in the Danchenko trial has denied Durham from bringing up the pee tape because it has nothing to do with the charges brought.
Durham has a serious interest in proving the pee tape to be false when no one really believes it exists in the first place. It is really weird.
So the Grand Jury has expired… this seems to be the final of Durham before his report. He failed to get a conviction on Sussmann, if he fails to get a conviction on Danchenko what does that say about the quality of his work?
If Durham can prove the facts listed in the indictment, and a jury finds Danchenko not guilty, it will tell us more about the jury.
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1446386/download
Now that is funny.
This is a confusing statement.
If the jury finds Danchenko not guilty, that means Durham failed to prove the facts listed in the indictment.
That’s what a jury does - they’re the fact finders.
If the allegations in the indictment are proven, that should result in a conviction. Is it impossible that the facts in the indictment could be proven but the jury would not convict? Of course that is possible.
It’s all hypothetical until the trial, anyway.
It is going to be tough for Durham I think since one of the key charges relies on lying about conversations that Danchenko had with Sergei Millian and Millian is not testifying at the trial.
It’s up to the jury to determine whether or not Durham had proved the allegations in the indictment. That’s their job.
If the jury doesn’t convict Danchenko, that means Durham didn’t prove the allegations in the indictment.
If the jury doesn’t convict, that proves the jury didn’t convict.
