Tuesday morning links

Re California High School's Female 'Teacher of the Year' Busted for Allegedly Having Sex with 16-Year-Old Student

Inappropriate, but a crime?

Absolutely a crime! Goose, gander. Teach female (yes, I did just presume her gender) teachers to keep their hands off of minor students. A male teacher in the same position (assuming you spotted something rarer than a unicorn these days) would be fired and prosecuted instantly.

#1 John Fisher on 2023-05-23 09:10 (Reply)

But isn't there a double standard?

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2023-05-23 09:15 (Reply)

They just made either a libertarian or a conservative out of a 16 year old boy, who can't believe his good luck and isn't thinking about 'standards', double or otherwise.

#1.1.1 Aggie on 2023-05-23 09:29 (Reply)

Yes there is, as it should be.

#1.1.2 Phil G on 2023-05-23 13:36 (Reply)

Spot-on. It's absolutely a crime, and the lackadaisical response to females who do things like this fosters the environment in which they get less harsher punishments.

#1.2 Maniac on 2023-05-23 09:45 (Reply)

A teacher who is sufficiently well-known in California education bureaucrat circles to be awarded. Take a moment to think about it and then on scale of 1-10 how surprised are you to learn that said person is a pervert?

#1.3 Freddo on 2023-05-23 10:54 (Reply)

“We have heard that many of you are in pain and upset by yesterday’s Moving Forward session,” the email said....

I'm not easily offended, but when I see one of these cringe-worthy apologies, I immediately picture a Maoist struggle session dunce cap on the speaker's head.

Nobody is mollified by such attempts, when you think about it, because the words are tailored for fools. The real purpose is to abase oneself, prostrating before one's woke masters, who don't believe the apology either. It's an exercise in dominance, the pleas of a terrified coward to the petty tyrants. Now that, I find offensive.

#2 Aggie on 2023-05-23 09:36 (Reply)

Had I had the misfortune to be there, I rather think pain and upset wouldn't have been my responses but instead rage at being forced to listen to an atrocious rant combining buffalo bagels and serious anti ordinary people prejudice. Fortunately, I make it a practice to have some needlework (or crochet work) at hand, which enables me to refrain from charging up and grabbing the speaker by the throat.

#2.1 Frances on 2023-05-24 02:21 (Reply)

Social Justice™ Now Claims Waking Up Early Is White Supremacy

Oh, that's just great. Now my bladder is a white supremacist.

#3 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2023-05-23 09:45 (Reply)

Of course waking up early is racist! No one anywhere ever had to get up early throughout the entire history of mankind until American slavery. Except for them pale Northerners bidin' their time in the Middle Ages, practicin' racism at milkin' time, just waitin' for their chance to torment the world...

"As the door turneth upon his hinges, so doth the slothful upon his bed."

"The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands refuse to labour."

Both of those (and there are more) are from the Book of Proverbs, which as we all know was written by Anglo-Saxons about 3000 years ago.

#4 Codfanglers on 2023-05-23 09:50 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The FBI is a danger to democracy . . . We already knew that the claim Russia colluded with Donald Trump to win the presidency in 2016 was false. Multiple investigations, including the Mueller report, have revealed as much.

The Mueller report found that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, that the Trump campaign welcomed such interference, that there were links between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, and that there was substantial evidence of obstruction. The Mueller report explicitly did not exonerate Trump.

QUOTE:

The But Durham’s report, published earlier this week, is nevertheless shocking.

The Horowitz report said the investigation was properly predicated. Durham said that the investigation should have been preliminary only. Shocking!

QUOTE:

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Media Malpractice . . . "For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign"

Which specific articles which won the Pulitzer Prize represent "malpractice"?

#5 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 10:20 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Which specific articles which won the Pulitzer Prize represent "malpractice"?

Every one of them with the "collusion" lie between Trump and the Russians that was made up out of whole cloth by the Hillary campaign.

Did you kiddieZ actually read the article?

#5.1 Zachinoff on 2023-05-23 11:59 (Reply)

Russia did not interfere in the election. All narrative and no substance. They lied and kept lying.

Why the Durham report matters-part one, remember the russian diplomats expelled by Obama?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com May 22, 2023

#5.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:11 (Reply)

The FISA court itself and Senator Warner were caught up in the scam.

Why the Durham report matters-part 2, the FISA court silo and the SSCI vice-chairman Mark Warner

May 22, 2023 https://the conservativetreehouse.com

#5.3 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:19 (Reply)

Assange and hack claims. More narrative.

Why the Durham report matters-Part 3, Durham did not touch the Julian Assange and DNC hack claim, more silos

May 23, 2023 https://theconservativetreehouse.com

#5.4 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:27 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Russia did not interfere in the election.

The Mueller report, the Durham report, and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence report confirmed that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. Mueller indicted Russian intelligence officers for election interference, but they fled to Russia to avoid prosecution.

Furthermore, we have publicly available evidence confirming Russian interference, including the exact URL used to spoof the Chair of the Hillary Clinton's election campaign, as well as a faulty VPN which revealed the location of the the source of the DNC emails to Russian intelligence in Moscow.

indyjonesouthere: The FISA court itself and Senator Warner were caught up in the scam.

Notably, you didn't point to any specific article which was part of the Pulitzer Prize.

#5.5 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:28 (Reply)

That is all narrative created by the intelligence community including the 51 intelligence operatives that swore up and down that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation. They are world class scammers. They also are behind the overthrow of the 2014 Ukraine president and the disinformation that Ukraine is WINNING. What a sad bunch of psychopaths.

#5.5.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:36 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: That is all narrative created by the intelligence community including the 51 intelligence operatives that swore up and down that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation.

That's the problem when you rely on unreliable secondary sources. They were former intelligence officials, and they stated "we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement". Also, keep in mind that the New York Post refused to share the contents of the hard drives, and there were multiple altered versions in circulation, so there was no way to independently check the provenance.

#5.5.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:43 (Reply)

They still have security clearences and access to associates. Do you actually think they don't talk to each other whether that is legal or not?

#5.5.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:49 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They still have security clearences and access to associates.

YOUR claim is that the intelligence officers "swore up and down that the Hunter Biden laptop was disinformation." That claim is false. They specifically said they didn't know. Again, you should avoid relying on unreliable secondary sources. Read the actual letter, not what partisan hacks say about it. You should challenge your prejudices, not indulge them. And when you discover your sources are unreliable, you should approach them with heightened skepticism.

#5.5.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:53 (Reply)

They specifically intended to deceive everyone about the laptop contents which was the only reason to even write the letter. They are decepticons and continue to deceive on every topic. They are psychopaths.

#5.5.2.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:57 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They specifically intended to deceive everyone about the laptop contents which was the only reason to even write the letter.

It would be helpful if you were to grant that your claim was false. We already touched on your point about intention, but will address if more directly once you have retracted your false claim.

#5.5.2.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:04 (Reply)

You are only useful for echoing the claims of the intelligence community who have a well know record for deception and lying in all things. Do retract your constant use of their narratives.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:09 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Do retract your constant use of their narratives.

We would be happy to retract any false claims we may have made. However, while you have obstinately refused to retract false claims when shown they are false, you have yet to show any of our claims are false. Indeed, we endeavor to provide support for our claims, such as directly quoting the Durham report and linking to the letter signed by the former intelligence officials, as well as directly quoting you or claims from your linked secondary sources and providing cites to primary sources to show why those claims are false.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:13 (Reply)

Your former IC officials were intent on deception of the voters before the election. That is their sole reason for the letter. DECEPTION. Now their even show up constantly pushing the same deceptions on the alphabet channels. They interfered in the election and need to be prosecuted.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:21 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Your former IC officials were intent on deception of the voters before the election.

Let us know when you find yourself capable of retracting your false claim about the content of the actual letter. When you have, we will consider addressing your new claim.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:26 (Reply)

They interfered in an election and that was the intent of the letter. Deceive the public and promote a false narrative about the laptop. They need to be prosecuted for election interference. They continue the deception and no one yet shows any attempt to prosecute any of the Biden crimes shown on the laptop. And they make more appearances on the alphabet channels as EXPERTS.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:34 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They interfered in an election and that was the intent of the letter.

They are private citizens and are allowed to express their opinions, a.k.a. "interfere in the election".

indyjonesouthere: They need to be prosecuted for election interference.

Under what possible statute?

Have you abandoned your earlier claim?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:37 (Reply)

They, and you, know exactly what occurred but you must keep up your denial for the sake of the survival of the reigning elite and their decepticons.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:47 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They, and you, know exactly what occurred

What occurred is that you misrepresented the actual letter and have refused to admit the error.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 14:20 (Reply)

What actually occurred is that they were all in on deceiving the voting public in order to advance their political agenda. And you can't admit it.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 15:11 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: What actually occurred is that they were all in on deceiving the voting public in order to advance their political agenda.

You forgot to provide the statute you believe they should be prosecuted under.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 15:34 (Reply)

Racketeering. And with their other follies, likely treason.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 15:43 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Racketeering.

If you mean 18 U.S. Code § 1961, none of the definitions of racketeering activity appear to apply.

indyjonesouthere: likely treason

How so? Private citizens have the right to express their opinions, even if you don't agree with them.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 15:53 (Reply)

Racketeering fits just fine and its a good start to combine all the IC silos into that everyone can see, even the media. You are going to need a Borg update.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 16:05 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Racketeering fits just fine

Huh? What provision of the statute?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 16:19 (Reply)

Racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations act. Allows government to punish individuals associated with criminal activity, specifically the leaders.

This is a criminal Obama/Hillary gang ... round them up.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 17:54 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations act.

That was the question: Which provision applies? Murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, . . . ? There has to be underlying criminal activity. See 18 U.S. Code § 1961.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 20:18 (Reply)

They can easily start with bribery and extortion and move on up as the crime family squeals.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 21:12 (Reply)

Add lying to the court, making false statement to the court ... the list is endless.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 21:29 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They can easily start with bribery and extortion

So, former intelligence officials, now private citizens, publishing a letter expressing their opinion is "bribery and extortion."

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 08:58 (Reply)

And you don't remember when they were actually a part of the IC that lied to the courts, lied to the public,. lied to Congress, lied to the president, fabricated intelligence and you somehow forget all the BS they pulled over Obama's term and all of Trumps turn. You have Corn Pops memory for detail. You need more Borg updates.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 11:09 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: And you don't remember when they were actually a part of the IC that lied to the courts, lied to the public,. lied to Congress, lied to the president, fabricated intelligence and you somehow forget all the BS they pulled over Obama's term and all of Trumps turn.

Why weren't they indicted by Trump's attorney general, Bob Barr? Or by Bob Barr's pick for Special Counsel, John Durham?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 12:40 (Reply)

You already forgot "bondo" Bill Barr and "paint" John Durham? Barr was there to protect the institutions and nothing more and he appointed Durham. You didn't read the treehouse piece on Durham making zero recommendations or suggestions did you.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 14:26 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You already forgot "bondo" Bill Barr and "paint" John Durham?

So, according to you, Trump chose people who would protect the institutions but do nothing about crimes against the election process to Trump's detriment. So, of course, Trump went to court over the election. What happened there?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 14:29 (Reply)

Trump followed recommendations and most were not his choices as you remember that McConnell kept the Senate in session throughout Trumps term. Trump could only get what McConnell would allow.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:06 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You didn't read the treehouse piece on Durham making zero recommendations or suggestions did you.

We read all three parts. The lack of new indictments or recommendations demonstrates the weakness of the Durham report.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 14:38 (Reply)

It only indicates a lack of spine from the Barr/Durham team to even provide recommendations. They are the coverup.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:01 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: They are the coverup.]

That would mean everybody (present company excepted) are in on it. Then what possible source for factual information is left?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 15:25 (Reply)

Trump was an outsider and not a political insider. The uniparty doesn't like outsiders interfering in their grift. They find it easy to look away and send the lawfare sharks in to disable any reform at all of the grifting and larceny. There's a reason they leave as multimillionaires.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:49 (Reply)

You didn't answer the question. What possible source for factual information is left?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 15:50 (Reply)

Dragging the culprits into the House for a full investigation with all culprits present to rid them of pretending to not know what was going on. Just as treehouse recommends. They can't duck and dive questions.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 16:03 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Dragging the culprits into the House for a full investigation with all culprits present to rid them of pretending to not know what was going on.

You've already indicated that the Congress can't be trusted. Why wouldn't that just be another coverup?

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 16:09 (Reply)

The Senate is converged with McConnell but the House is the place to hold the investigation.

#5.5.2.1.1.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 16:13 (Reply)

It is in part 2 of the report on FISA court and Warner.

#5.5.3 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:48 (Reply)

Pulitzer prize? What?

#5.5.4 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:54 (Reply)

Fake news wins fake awards

#5.5.4.1 Phil G on 2023-05-23 13:46 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Pulitzer prize? What?

The original article in the original post was Pulitzer Prize-Winning Media Malpractice. We asked the obvious question: Which specific articles which won the Pulitzer Prize represent "malpractice"?

#5.5.5 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:57 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The Conservative Tree House: First, John Durham clearly shows in his 306-page report with a 48-page classified appendix, that Russia did nothing to interfere in the 2016 election.

QUOTE:

Durham report: The scope of these earlier inquiries, the amount of important information gathered, and the contributions they have made to our understanding of Russian election interference efforts are a tribute to the diligent work and dedication of those charged with the responsibility of conducting them.

#5.6 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:35 (Reply)

Ñotably Quibble-DickZ are intentionally being obtuse. Guess ChatGPT didn't have a response ready for y'all.

#5.6.1 Zachinoff on 2023-05-23 12:40 (Reply)

... and contributions they have made to our understanding of Russian election interference are a tribute to the diligent work...

There was no interference and we understand that now. The entire effort was to create the narrative. The intelligence community created the narrative and passed it on to the SSCI and the media for dissemination.

#5.6.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 12:45 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: There was no interference and we understand that now.

YOU provided the linked article. That article claimed that Durham had shown there was no Russian election interference. That claim was false. You should avoid relying on unreliable secondary sources.

#5.6.3 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 12:50 (Reply)

You should avoid the continuing denial of the intelligence communities deceptions. From russia, russia, russia, to Ukraine is winning.

#5.6.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:00 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You should avoid the continuing denial of the intelligence communities deceptions.

Repeating your points without support, even after your previous claims have been shown false, doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

As for "russia, russia, russia:" Russia interfered in the U.S. election, the Trump campaign welcomed such interference, there were links between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, and there was substantial evidence of obstruction. The Mueller report explicitly did not exonerate Trump.

As for "Ukraine winning," that is far from clear. Ukraine has shown they will continue to exist as a sovereign nation, but Russia continues to occupy swaths of their territory. The battle has been bogged down for quite some time, with both sides bleeding profusely.

#5.6.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:08 (Reply)

Repeating your intelligence community narratives does not enhance their reliability. It only enhances their fear of being uncovered and prosecuted. AND they will be prosecuted. And Ukraine narratives from the IC are a mockery of reality. The IC does not deal with truth, they deal with narratives.

#5.6.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:16 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Repeating your intelligence community narratives does not enhance their reliability.

There is publicly available information about Russian election interference, including the hack of the Clinton campaign.

indyjonesouthere: It only enhances their fear of being uncovered and prosecuted.

Who? Prosecuted for what?

#5.6.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:19 (Reply)

There was no hack. Read the Assange piece.
Start with interference with an election.

#5.6.3.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:23 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: There was no hack.

Not only do we know that the chair of the Clinton campaign was hacked, we know the bit.ly URL and the exact underlying URL used to spoof his account, which included a base 64 encoding of Podesta's gmail address (am9obi5wb2Rlc3RhQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ).

#5.6.3.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 13:30 (Reply)

John McAfee, a virus expert, stated that the IC was quite capable of creating that delusion to save Hillary's hide. The FBI never had direct access to her computer to confirm or deny that information of the hack. But Assange can confirm that the information did not come from a hack but from a thumb drive. That is why he has been bagged and kept from the public. Now Seth Rich is another story. The narrative, from the IC has fallen apart.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 13:44 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: John McAfee, a virus expert, stated that the IC was quite capable of creating that delusion to save Hillary's hide.

You are conflating two different hacks. The hack of Podesta's account was a spoofing attack which is publicly documented.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 14:15 (Reply)

Of course the Russians interfered in the election--we expect them too. It's kinda their job.

What we don't expect and shouldn't accept is the FBI, the State Dept, and the CIA nterfering in the election, which they clearly did in both '16 and '20. The Russians got a hell of a lot for their minimal investment with the help of FIB, CIA, and corp. media. And of course gullible fools like you.

They're laughing they're asses off.

Why do you keep defending it?

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.1 SK on 2023-05-23 15:06 (Reply)

The FBI, CIA and State department have been interfering in our election along with elections in Ukraine and likely Italy and Hungary. They take sides by disseminating lies, falsehoods, and deceptions. Our US history is full of CIA deceptions, drug importations and political interferences. Even Kennedy doesn't buy your story.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 15:30 (Reply)

No. He and Binney both disagree with the Hillary "hack". And Seth Rich likely died trying to get the information to Assange. All three are now dead. Someone getting nervous? And FBI never had access to the original computer for investigations. Strange, yes? You need to get a borg update.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 15:22 (Reply)

SK: Of course the Russians interfered in the election--we expect them too.

We might expect them to, based on past behavior, but such felonious behavior shouldn't be allowed, or, in the case of the Trump campaign, welcomed. Regardless, contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a grave national security threat.

SK: What we don't expect and shouldn't accept is the FBI, the State Dept, and the CIA nterfering in the election, which they clearly did in both '16 and '20.

Neither the Durham report nor the Horowitz report concluded political bias. Both agreed that an investigation was warranted, though, Durham thought only a preliminary investigation was appropriate.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 15:32 (Reply)

Horowitz was constrained by his inability to require interviews. Durham was under no such constraints and saw the games that were played. What is needed, as Treehouse suggests, is a House investigation with all the subjects gathered together as questions are asked so that they can not duck and dive over "it's not my purview". That will be coming to an investigation committee in the near future. Just in time for the election season. Enjoy. And DC judges and juries won't be able to save them.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 15:41 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Horowitz was constrained by his inability to require interviews.

Horowitz was constrained from requiring interviews with non-government persons, but could require interviews with those in government.

indyjonesouthere: Durham was under no such constraints and saw the games that were played.

Yet, Durham agreed that Russia had interfered in the election, and that a preliminary investigation was warranted.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 15:48 (Reply)

Nice narrative. It won't keep the IC and their comrades in arms out of the House hearings. Pass that along to the Borg minions.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 16:09 (Reply)

And you keep forgetting, Barr is the bondo and Durham was the paint. They did all they could to protect the institutions without looking guilty. The institutions will fall, just as the Ukraine will fall. It's only a matter of how many bodies accumulate.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 16:14 (Reply)

"Neither the Durham report nor the Horowitz report concluded political bias."

Out of all the nonsense you've written, this is the most laughable. It's as ridiculous a statement as the one you condemn saying there was no Russian interference in '16. The actions--and inactions-- detailed in the reports wouldn't have happened WITHOUT bias. Peter Strozk's emails alone stand for themselves in showing bias.

Why did the FBI act "without strict fidelity to the law"? Were they just hung over that day?

Again, why are you defending this?

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.3 SK on 2023-05-23 16:03 (Reply)

SK: The actions--and inactions-- detailed in the reports wouldn't have happened WITHOUT bias.

Individuals can and do have biases, including political biases, but that is not the same as saying the investigation was politically biased. Durham concluded the investigation was tainted by confirmation bias. That doesn't mean Durham is correct. He was straining in the report to find something actionable, but failed. So, he waves his hands.

SK: Why did the FBI act "without strict fidelity to the law"?

That was Durham's stated conclusion, yet he didn't actually find any law that was broken. Could the investigators have done better? Well, yeah. However, there was more than enough evidence that an investigation was necessary.

SK: Again, why are you defending this?

We're defending facts. You claimed political interference, but Durham did not conclude political interference. He had nothing much to add that wasn't already covered in the Horowitz report. The sum total is that he thought a full investigation was unwarranted, but that a preliminary investigation was. That's it.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 16:18 (Reply)

The FBI lied and covered up. You pretend not to remember the lying lawyer? They lied to the FISA courts ... numberous times.
You aren't defending facts, you are defending the FBI narrative, the IC narrative, and the Mueller narrative.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 18:00 (Reply)

The FBI continues to spy illegally, didn't you read the latest revelations on illegal spying? They are a criminal organization well worth charging with RICO violations.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 18:05 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The FBI lied and covered up. . .

Durham just completed a four year, multimillion dollar investigation. If, as you claim, there was extensive criminal activity, why weren’t the alleged criminals indicted?

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.3 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 20:21 (Reply)

You didn't read part 3 of what I posted. It's there.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 21:14 (Reply)

And Mueller spent multimillions and years with the Weissman staff and could find nothing. They did "accidentally" delete everything on their government phones.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.3.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 21:17 (Reply)

Durham report, notice what he doesn't do? Recommend an solutions.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/page/3/ May 19, 2023

No proposed change in policy or systems. Because policy and systems are not the issue, it is the intent of the people within it-those who weaponized it. And it continues.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.3.3 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-23 21:24 (Reply)

Bingo. When I saw the FBI's press release about all the changes they'd made after the report I probably laughed as hard as they did when they put it out.

And you've gotta love the language "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law". A statement worthy of the guy who said he robbed banks because that's where the money is.

I knew from the beginning that the Durham thing was simply going to be a fluff to show they were "serious about corruption" while protecting the institution, but it's still a disappointment.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.3.3.1 SK on 2023-05-24 04:37 (Reply)

"...why weren’t the alleged criminals indicted??"

Damned good question. By the way, Cliinesmith WAS charged--and given a slap on the wrist. Lied to the most powerful court in the land to spy on a presidential campaign and still has his law license. Not to mention Sussman and Danchenko (!) who were summarily OJ'd. And McCabe, fired on recc of a panel of his fellow agents, got back his pension. Nice work if you can get it.

Oh, and don't forget Samantha Power, our favorite little spook planted at the UN, rewarded with nice plum job at USAID, which nicely rounds out her Fed pension dollars. Oh well, her abuse of Section 702 was merely a drop in the giant ocean of what your heroes at the FBI did with that fun little tool, now wasn't it?

You aren't as you say "defending facts", other than the fact that these people got away with a great dirty trick, and worked with the Russians to do it. You're defending people who let political considerations and biases guide their application of the law. It's wonderful to see fools like you spin around redefining "confirmation bias" and pretending that any other campaign would have been treated this way or that the principals would have gone unpunished if it had been.

But the unfortunate fact is that they won--they got away with it and they'll do it again, because of a non functioning press and "useful idiots" like you who parrot what their betters tell them.

It's really a reverse Watergate, where FBI in the person of Mark Felt worked with a functioning press (WAPO!) to uncover a scandal, and members of the admin's own party went to the president and told him to resign. This time the FBI, the intel community, and corp media worked together to perpetuate the candidate's dirty trick, and the Democrats with very few exceptions finished running the table.

I asked before why you're doing it, but I and most people here know the answer--what's behind your support and defense of it all is that you're thrilled at feeling as if you're a part of something grand.

It's pitiable, really--the only thing you're part of is the great mewling mass being conditioned to believe what's not true. But I have to say it's fun watching you play gotcha with a bunch of old retired guys on an obscure website. A hell of a life you've carved out for yourself.

Go on, spin a little more, boy, make 'em proud. Maybe you can finally get that apprenticeship keeping Keith Olberman's coffee cup topped off!

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.4 SK on 2023-05-24 04:19 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: No proposed change in policy or systems. Because policy and systems are not the issue, it is the intent of the people within it-those who weaponized it.

If so, Durham could have brought indictments.

SK: By the way, Cliinesmith WAS charged--and given a slap on the wrist.

True, and he should have been more severely punished. However, Clinesmith's act was individual and not part of a conspiracy.

SK: Not to mention Sussman and Danchenko (!) who were summarily OJ'd.

Yes, acquitted. And that is the sum total of Durham's legal efforts.

SK: You aren't as you say "defending facts", other than the fact that these people got away with a great dirty trick, and worked with the Russians to do it.

You are assuming your conclusion. (Evidence. Try it sometime.)

In any case, apparently, Durham must have been in on the conspiracy. And Horowitz. And Barr. Andm as Trump appointed Barr who appointed Durham, Trump must have been in on it too!

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 09:10 (Reply)

Good try, little buddy!

The Meuller report, IG Horowitz report, Durham, the Twitter files--read 'em sometime without your idealogical filter. It's all there. You just don't like what you see.

But what the heck, you seem to have convinced yourself--one day you might convince some other idiot. Plenty of folks out there only seek out sources confirming their own biases.

Now do the Wuhan lab...I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's noticed your conspicuous silence on that one.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.1 SK on 2023-05-24 11:47 (Reply)

SK: The Meuller report, IG Horowitz report, Durham, the Twitter files--read 'em sometime without your idealogical filter.

Mueller report: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." . . . "therefore charged some US. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses." Mueller indicted multiple persons, including garnering a guilty plea from Flynn for lying about his contacts with Russian agents, a conviction of Manafort for corruption related to Kremlin-linked oligarchs, and twelve Russian intelligence agents who for some reason never appeared in court to defend themselves.

Horowitz report: The evidence was "sufficient to predicate the full counterintelligence investigation because it provided the FBI an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security may have occurred or may be occurring."

Durham report: "Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation." The one conviction was due to an individual's actions, not part of any conspiracy. Two others were charged with lying (what those on the political right often call 'process crimes') but found not guilty. No other indictments were brought.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 12:33 (Reply)

Each of those investigations kept a republican House from doing any investigation as it would be "interfering" in an ongoing investigation. It was a nice trick. Barr already knew before he appointed Durham that the IC and FBI were illegally spying on Trump and running a cover investigation to keep it out of the public. Obama actually started the illegal spying, you do remember Admiral Rogers making his unapproved trip to Trump to inform him and Trump moving his entire staff to another location. It was all illegal spying on Trump and Obama being informed of Hillary's russia, russia, russia gambit.

It was all designed as a massive spying coverup and a Russian collusion hoax. They failed. Now the House of Reps needs to drag all the clownworld participants in at one time and run the question drill where they can't pretend ignorance of the game.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 14:39 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: Each of those investigations kept a republican House from doing any investigation as it would be "interfering" in an ongoing investigation.

There's no law that says Congress can't independently investigate a bureau of the federal government, as long as there is a valid legislative purpose. For instance, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found that contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a "grave" national security threat.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 15:00 (Reply)

It's called "interfering with an ongoing investigation". That trap was always set waiting for Trump.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:09 (Reply)

The Senate, under McConnell was always a dead end and will continue to be so as long as McConnell is the leadership. The SSCI was nothing more than a leak institution and had trouble keeping their leaks anonymous. You remember Wolf. His leak nearly cost Warner his job. Wolfs lawyers were going to show that Warner ordered the leak and as a result the charges were dropped. The lying and deception never stopped in the SSCI, as Nunes was the only honest broker and they tried to dump him.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:16 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It's called "interfering with an ongoing investigation".]

As noted, the investigation was conducted by the Senate. You might not agree with their conclusions, but you had claimed that Congress was barred from investigating, which, as usual, is a false claim you will refuse to correct.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.3 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 15:21 (Reply)

The SSCI investigated nothing. They merely leaked information they got from the IC/FBI that was running the "investigation shows". The senate, itself, investigated nothing and only leaked what it got from the FBI/IC just like the SSCI. It was nothing more than a leak and tweak narrative with no substance. Only a cover your ass and keep that narrative flow to the media.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 15:58 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The SSCI investigated nothing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee took testimony from hundreds of witnesses and reviewed millions of documents. That's called an investigation. Again, you may not like the results, but they weren't prohibited from investigating, as you had claimed.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-05-24 16:02 (Reply)

That was all controlled by the McConnell uniparty. Notice that none of this was ever allowed in the House committee. Control, control, control. Manage the outcome. Put this investigation into the House committee and things change rapidly.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.2.3.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-05-24 16:07 (Reply)

GISH GALLOP! And a very weak one.

My god, you're a twit. You're making my argument.

Just one. I've got a lot to do before I leave for a fishing trip.

'Mueller report: "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." . ."'

Certainly a novel idea of the job of a prosecutor, and one you certainly support, comrade.

. "therefore charged some US. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses."

When the process becomes the punishment--and nothing to do with alleged Russia collusion. And doesn't address my accusation of election interference by intel and DOJ, the subject matter at hand, in case you forgot-again, the way they went after these people makes my point.

"Mueller indicted multiple persons, including garnering a guilty plea from Flynn for lying about his contacts with Russian agents,"

An incoming member of an admin talking to a member of a foreign govt? Heaven forfend! And why did they lure him to the meeting under false pretenses (Nah Mike, you don't need to bring a lawyer!) Good lord, Comey actually laughed about how easy it all was to set up the admin.

"a conviction of Manafort for corruption related to Kremlin-linked oligarchs,"

Which occurred before he was involved in the campaign, and was an investigation and prosecution that had been previously abandoned, only to be picked back up after Manafort was stupid enough to get involved with Trump.

"and twelve Russian intelligence agents who for some reason never appeared in court to defend themselves."

These people had nothing to do with the Trump campaign.

All of this BOLSTERS the notion that the intel and LE community took extraordinary measures to target a political campaign.

You're defending the politicization of the intel and LE community, and if you had any shame you'd just stop. But as we've seen that's a commodity you're lacking.

Has Olberman called yet?

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.3 SK on 2023-05-24 17:16 (Reply)

SK: GISH GALLOP!

You referenced the three reports, and insisted that we read them. We have. We provided a quote concerning a primary point of each report, and then detailed some of the other findings. So, not a Gish Gallop.

SK: Certainly a novel idea of the job of a prosecutor

Mueller was constrained by Justice Department rules that a sitting president can't be federally indicted.

SK: And doesn't address my accusation of election interference by intel and DOJ

You indicated that the three reports would support your position. However, Mueller found numerous instances of contacts between Russian agents and the Trump campaign, and evidence of obstruction. Horowitz found a full investigation was properly predicated. Durham found that a preliminary investigation was appropriate.

#5.6.3.2.2.2.2.3.4.5.2.4 Zachriel on 2023-05-25 07:07 (Reply)

The US is actually the global master of political interference with other countries' politics.

#5.7 Phil G on 2023-05-23 13:40 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Musk is right about Soros, libs’ trouble with truth and other commentary

Soros is often the subject of anti-Semitic attacks and conspiracy theories. Musk claimed that Soros "wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity." That is far beyond a policy difference, and has led to increased anti-Semitic vilification and death threats against Soros.

Soros's Open Society Foundations have been banned by authoritarian regimes, including Putin, because they are attempting to support independent media.

#6 Zachriel on 2023-05-23 10:29 (Reply)

Prosecutor funded by George Soros gets criminal sent to ‘diversion program’

https://www.thecollegefix.com/no-prison-time-for-black-man-who-set-asian-berkeley-students-on-fire-with-homemade-blowtorch/

#6.1 Zachinoff on 2023-05-23 12:34 (Reply)

Patrick Bateman was unavailable for comment regarding Wall St.
BS Durham made sure it was years too late and bless those who cling to the Bannon and Trump are going to bust a move in January 2025 delusion.
It will be Brazil or South Africa by then.
Pulitzer Prize is like the Nobel, worthless and only passed out at back patting circle jerks while everyone claims how historic it is.
I thought it was Babylon Bee but there is an actual Tik-Tok (CCP) claiming that toilets and plumbing is white supremacy.
The posters wears an upside down Black Liberation Movement obedience muzzle indoors.
Comrade Billy Ayers (CPUSA) of the Weather Underground mentions this term White Supremacy on page 23 of the Prairie Fire manifesto from 1974, it also mentions solidarity with all other races to overthrow the "oppressor" nation with lessons learned from Vietnam.
Where did Obama start his political career?
In the Ayers family living room back in the mid 1990's.

#7 Mystery Babylon Be on 2023-05-23 10:30 (Reply)

Re: "upstate NY counties"

It is ironic that NY City doesn't want them and they are a proud sanctuary city but when they foist them on other cities and counties that don't want them it is somehow "bigoted" to not welcome them in. IMHO 100% of these illegals should be bussed to sanctuary cities/counties/states and zero to normal cities/counties/states.

It should be a crime to help illegal aliens, to move them by bus or other transportation, to feed or house them or employ them. And I mean a crime for anyone including law enforcement or charities or anyone. The only legal and non-criminal process that should be allowed is to send them home.

#8 OneGuy on 2023-05-23 10:39 (Reply)

re California High School's Female 'Teacher of the Year' Busted for Allegedly Having Sex with 16-Year-Old Student

Inappropriate, but a crime?

A crime is whatever Government decides is a crime.

I recall back in the 1980s, a guy I knew was married to a HS teacher. One day he came home in the afternoon and caught her in the bath tub with a 15 year old male student.

They got a divorce, she left the area, and as far as I know, the boy suffered no ill effects from the liaison.

Law enforcement was never involved.

#9 feeblemind on 2023-05-23 11:12 (Reply)

Inappropriate, but a crime?

Should we put the 16 YO boy or girl in jail for having consensual sex? Why not if it's illegal. Do we put the 18 YO boy or girl in jail for having consensual sex with a 16YO? Yes we do. Our laws concerning this are contradictory and non-sensical.

First we should change the "charge" that someone faces for having consensual sex with someone over the age of puberty. Believe it or not these kids are having sex and putting everyone in jail that had sex with them makes zero sense. Neither does putting only certain people in jail for having consensual sex. We should avoid that fake legal construct that decides that consensual sex is "rape" if one of the participants is under age 18.

Regarding teachers; that is simple, if a teacher has sex with a student regardless of age they should be fired and not teach again. I would also say that if the teacher discusses sex, heterosexual, homosexual or other with a student they too should be fired. If the teacher fails to teach the children they should be fired. This all seems pretty basic to me.

#10 JustMe on 2023-05-23 11:34 (Reply)

Odd how spending ever-increasing amounts of money on the homelessness crisis seems to exacerbate the problem rather than retard it. It's kinda like my program to offer free candy bars to the neighborhood kids to get off my lawn seems to only attract them even more.

#11 Jerryskids on 2023-05-23 11:43 (Reply)

Was it Reagan who said, "If you subsidize something you get more of it, if you tax it you get less."?

Homelessness is most definitely being subsidized.

#11.1 feeblemind on 2023-05-23 13:18 (Reply)

While you were distracted by numerous charades the federal government just issues Sat phones to every U.S. Senator. According to the reports it was done so that Senators could communicate in a grid down situation. Hmmm! What do they mean by that? Do they mean nuclear war? Nooo! They wouldn't think that is likely... But there it is, the Senators (and who knows who else) were given Sat phones for the first time in our history because of something that could possibly make it impossible for them to do what?? What could a Senator possibly do that is so important and specifically in a "grid down" situation? Ladies and gentlemen there is only one thing and that is a formal declaration of war. Nothing else that the Senate does needs to be done in minutes. Everything they do takes days and is planned ahead of time and they must all be present on the floor to do it. But what if there is no Senate, no congressional buildings or offices... Naw! What could possibly cause that sudden and unexpected emergency? But yet... here we are and all the Senators were issued Sat phones to communicate in a grid down situation to do something that requires immediate action and cannot be done in the Senate chamber... Hmmmmm! I'm sure it's fine!

#12 Anon on 2023-05-23 14:51 (Reply)

What we need is another Red flag law. No, not the kind where you turn in your ex or the neighbor who you don't like. We need a red flag law for politicians. Something akin to a vote of no confidence. It should provoke a public hearing where only the views of the citizens can be heard followed by a up or down vote (in person, show ID, on paper ballots that are counted on live TV) to either keep them or kick them out. Everyone that works for government not just elected officials but everyone, judges, employees, cops, robbers (I mean politicians), all of them.

#13 OneGuy on 2023-05-23 15:10 (Reply)

I'm surprised more commenters didn't pick up on Mia Lee's psychopathic article. How she describes herself is definitely that of a psychopath (even though she is not the violent, delusional kind). In fact, her self-description would fit the likes of George Soros, and many other oligarchs and highly successful political figures. These people don't commit acts of individual violence, but their damage to society is very real and far more destructive when they get societal influence, simply because they have absolutely no empathy or understanding of other people. Most people would describe their mindset as mere selfishness, but it's much deeper than that. The huge challenge for human society is to learn how to recognize them and learn to mitigate their worst actions. I would say "impulses", but they don't really have impulses like normal people. Everything they do is a cold, calculation.

#14 RebeccaH on 2023-05-23 18:25 (Reply)

I would wager it won't end well for her.

#14.1 feeblemind on 2023-05-23 19:07 (Reply)

"she regularly indulges in expensive hobbies like whiskey and cigar tastings and joy rides in sports cars"

That is "fun"?

Climbing Mount Whitney, Mount Shasta, Mount Hood and the three Sisters was fun and exhilarating. Whiskey, cigars and sports cars, meh! Hiking the PCT is fun. Skiing the Alps is fun. Hunting bear and caribou, catching salmon deep in the Alaskan taiga is fun. Encountering a wolf pack with a caribou quarter tied onto your backpack is "exciting". I haven't owned a "car" in 35 years, trucks motor homes, jeeps and trailers but no cars and certainly no sports cars.

#14.2 OneGuy on 2023-05-23 19:30 (Reply)

"UC Berkeley holds segregated graduation ceremony for black students only"

The Democrats embracing segregation.

#15 JustMe on 2023-05-23 21:53 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, May 23. 2023