Danchenko acquitted. Durham goes 0/2 at trial.

Surprise surprise. The system protects itself again.

This would be very newsworthy if the claims had been proven wrong in court. They were not. They couldn’t prove certain conversations didn’t happen, so he was acquitted. The bar was set extremely high for this case.

Not surprising. The investigation was not predicated on evidence found by law enforcement... it began because Bill Barr watches too much Fox News. This is why politically motivated investigations are bad.

My guess is Durham is going to drop a report full of innuendo and bad anti-FBI punditry into Garland's lap, and he'll release it. It'll result in a week of ridiculous coverage on the right, and the Trump cultists will use it as evidence that "they were always right about Russiagate", which is nonsense.

You mean Durham couldn't get his coached witness to lie on the stand, then tried to discredit his own witness?

lol.

thanks to Mark Zuckergberg's confession we know that FBI rigged the 2020 election by instructing US social media giants to BLACKLIST a FACTUAL story of Biden family corruption via selling access to the white house for personal gain

furthermore, a cabal of government agents was caught in their effort to rig the 2020 election & betray the oath to their country by running a disinformation campaign against a sitting United States president in order to steal his second presidential term:
(the left-wing fascist "Democrat" party is yet to persecute any for clear treason)

Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.

Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”

Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.

John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.

Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.

Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.

Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.

Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.

Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.

Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.

Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”

Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”

John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.

Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:
Didn’t respond.

Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.

Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.

Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.

David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”

Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.

Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.

David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.

Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.

Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.

David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.

Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.

Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.

Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”

Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.

Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.

Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”

Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”

Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.

John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.

Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.

Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.

Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.

David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.

Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”

Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached.

No I mean exactly what I said, as usual.

It is very hard to prove a conversation didn’t happen.

Oh, and this doesn’t prove anything about russiagate was correct either. Silly topic showing as we all knew this trial wasn’t going anywhere. Take a W where you can get it though I guess

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Oct 18 2022 06:32pm

Enjoy your conspiracies I guess TiStuff

I’m sorry are we talking about the same thing? Are you capable of engagement or are you going to simply say, “you are a different user” and call it that. I still don’t understand how calming a user another user means you are correct about everything but I am still learning internet rules.

Am I tstuff dark head sir Thom or juggalo though?

Or am I just somebody who brings up points that actually make sense so your only retort is to claim I am a user who you generally win arguments against? Why is it that the only two users capable of conversation are snipa and crossroads. Lord knows they are usually arrogant but they actually present information and actually argue their point 9/10 times.

Sorry for engaging enjoy your useless thread

This post was edited by YeeHaw on Oct 18 2022 07:09pm

What exactly are you celebrating? Hooray for foreign espionage and meddling in our elections, hooray for internal corruption and an eternal breach of public trust?

Blatant tribalist BS. A case that had no chance of winning (surprise) didn’t go anywhere. Russiagate slowly fades away as we learn more about it.