I’ve stopped expecting big things from any government investigation of government.
Yes, if he broke the law he should be prosecuted.
According to the article, allegedly Clinton connected. OP left that part out. WEIRD.
Ah yes, the ole classic “when someone doesnt say what I want to be true, theyre in on the conspiracy.”
We literally have nothing else to go by
The real question is why this nothingberder tastes so good.
We’ll see. Somebody broke the law. Nobody has provided a shred of evidence that Trump had a secret deal with Vlad. The big lie had to start somewhere.
I would also prosecute Shifty for claiming that he had evidence that he never produced. He is probably the biggest liar involved in the big lie.
2 Likes
Just giving you an update that some movement has finally happened with the big lie. Did you not want an update?
Here is the NYT article.
This is about the meeting between Sussmann and Baker, if Baker’s recollection was correct that Sussmann said he was not representing a client which is in contradiction to Congressional testimony Sussmann later gave which he said that he was representing a client.
Sussmann claims that that client is not Clinton but a unnamed cyber security expert.
This hinges on if notes from a third party who Baker told about the conversation are admissible or if they are hear say.
It’s not really a bombshell and if nothing happens on it by this weekend then nothing happens because the statute of limitations runs out.
2 Likes
PJ media had it sounding spicier then that but ok 
1 Like
Never claimed it was. Never claimed we would ever have a so called “bombshell.” In fact. I predicted just the opposite. Remember?
My thread is breaking news of movement on the Big Lie. Am I still expecting this to fizzle out. Of course. My mind has not been changed.
Was he under oath when he said that? What would you charge him with?
Nothing has happened. You fabricated something against what your article says. You left out a REALLY important qualifier to make it seem as though something was happening that is only ALLEGEDLY happening.
I don’t remember. I just remember him lying his ass off. It’s not okay for a member of congress or anyone to lie about an investigation. Under oath or not. He’s a dirt bag for pushing this horse ■■■■ And for other reasons.
2 Likes
True. But they think it might because if he doesn’t move soon the statute of limitations expires. Could this be yet another false alarm? Of course.
If this info pisses you off, too bad so sad.
2 Likes
i didnt say anything about any “conspiracy”
is everything a conspiracy conspiracy to you?
1 Like
There really isn’t a “Big Lie” here.
information was brought to the FBI and really nothing happened.
I guess they can make a case out of this… but it seems pretty weak since there doesn’t seem to be any contemporaneous notes from Baker… only notes from someone that made from talking to Baker.
Who’s pissed? This is a nothingberder. There’s nothing surprising about any of this.
Oh but there is. Creating a fake story about an agreement that never happened is a lie of the tenth magnitude. But yes, I understand your point. Since democrats are all perfect angels 
we should never dare to accuse them of lying. “That’s not who we are.”
1 Like
Well, sure you are. You’re postulating Durham is some sort of “insider” like Barr was when he didn’t say what you wanted him to say.
If anything… back in 2016 this helped Trump more than it hurt.
Here was the headline about the Alfa bank incident just days before the election.
1 Like
Maybe you’re not. But your replies sound pretty pissed. So there’s that.
