Member Since: 9/8/02
Posts: 28653
Posts: 28653
OtherGround Forums More Durham Indictments Coming Today???
9/22/20 1:23 AM
9/22/20 11:45 AM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1451
Posts: 1451
Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
9/22/20 12:21 PM
Member Since: 9/13/08
Posts: 1403
Posts: 1403
Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked classified information?
So Barr is a good guy now?
9/22/20 12:27 PM Edited: 9/22/20 12:29 PM
Edited: 9/22/20 12:29 PM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1457
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1457
czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?
No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
9/22/20 1:06 PM
Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
9/22/20 1:35 PM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1463
Posts: 1463
NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
"However, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation and called witnesses before a grand jury in Washington.
In mid-September, prosecutors indicated to McCabe’s attorneys that the government planned to seek an indictment against the former senior FBI official in connection with the findings by Justice Department and FBI watchdogs that he misled them.
Defense attorneys are typically told of an expected indictment a day or two ahead of time. However, in McCabe’s case, no indictment was announced.
Press reports said jurors who sit on the Washington-based grand jury who heard testimony were in the courthouse that week, but there was no indication any indictment was returned. The silence led to speculation that the grand jury might have produced a rare “no bill,” where jurors decline to vote an indictment recommended by prosecutors."
They tried to indict him and failed, meaning they were less able to convince a grand jury that McCabe was guilty of a crime than they would be of convincing them that a ham sandwich had.
9/22/20 1:41 PM
Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
"However, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation and called witnesses before a grand jury in Washington.In mid-September, prosecutors indicated to McCabe’s attorneys that the government planned to seek an indictment against the former senior FBI official in connection with the findings by Justice Department and FBI watchdogs that he misled them.Defense attorneys are typically told of an expected indictment a day or two ahead of time. However, in McCabe’s case, no indictment was announced.Press reports said jurors who sit on the Washington-based grand jury who heard testimony were in the courthouse that week, but there was no indication any indictment was returned. The silence led to speculation that the grand jury might have produced a rare “no bill,” where jurors decline to vote an indictment recommended by prosecutors."They tried to indict him and failed, meaning they were less able to convince a grand jury that McCabe was guilty of a crime than they would be of convincing them that a ham sandwich had.
Again you're taking speculation as fact.
Easily fooled larry should be your new name
9/22/20 9:10 PM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1473
Posts: 1473
NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
"However, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation and called witnesses before a grand jury in Washington.In mid-September, prosecutors indicated to McCabe’s attorneys that the government planned to seek an indictment against the former senior FBI official in connection with the findings by Justice Department and FBI watchdogs that he misled them.Defense attorneys are typically told of an expected indictment a day or two ahead of time. However, in McCabe’s case, no indictment was announced.Press reports said jurors who sit on the Washington-based grand jury who heard testimony were in the courthouse that week, but there was no indication any indictment was returned. The silence led to speculation that the grand jury might have produced a rare “no bill,” where jurors decline to vote an indictment recommended by prosecutors."They tried to indict him and failed, meaning they were less able to convince a grand jury that McCabe was guilty of a crime than they would be of convincing them that a ham sandwich had.Again you're taking speculation as fact.
Easily fooled larry should be your new name
Facts, not speculation:
Doj prosecutors impaneled a grand jury
Grand jury had testimony from DoJ witnesses
Doj prosecutors told McCabe to expect an indictment
....No indictment was issued by the grand jury
....DoJ eventually gave up on the pretense of charging McCabe
McCabe had every right to tell the press whatever he wanted about the case as he was an original authority
9/22/20 10:31 PM
Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
"However, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation and called witnesses before a grand jury in Washington.In mid-September, prosecutors indicated to McCabe’s attorneys that the government planned to seek an indictment against the former senior FBI official in connection with the findings by Justice Department and FBI watchdogs that he misled them.Defense attorneys are typically told of an expected indictment a day or two ahead of time. However, in McCabe’s case, no indictment was announced.Press reports said jurors who sit on the Washington-based grand jury who heard testimony were in the courthouse that week, but there was no indication any indictment was returned. The silence led to speculation that the grand jury might have produced a rare “no bill,” where jurors decline to vote an indictment recommended by prosecutors."They tried to indict him and failed, meaning they were less able to convince a grand jury that McCabe was guilty of a crime than they would be of convincing them that a ham sandwich had.Again you're taking speculation as fact.
Easily fooled larry should be your new name
Facts, not speculation:
Doj prosecutors impaneled a grand jury
Grand jury had testimony from DoJ witnesses
Doj prosecutors told McCabe to expect an indictment
....No indictment was issued by the grand jury
....DoJ eventually gave up on the pretense of charging McCabe
McCabe had every right to tell the press whatever he wanted about the case as he was an original authority
Read your quote. It says right there lead to speculation about a rare no bill.
see that word speculation?
9/23/20 9:30 AM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1475
Posts: 1475
NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -czwthemerph -Crazy Larry -Remember when they couldn't even get an indictment on McCabe, despite trying so very hard, and despite the OG motto that "you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich"?
Lol, good times.
Oh you mean when AG Barr inexplicably said they wouldn't prosecute after a referral and it being proven that he illegally leaked information?
So Barr is a good guy now?No, when Barr referred charges on McCabe to a grand jury and it was one of those cases where they did not issue an indictment, despite it being possible to get an indictment for a ham sandwich. Barr had no choice in not prosecuting because he could not get an indictment. Oops!
Also you are misinformed, McCabe had full authority to tell the press what he had an employee tell them. He did not and in fact could not have leaked it illegally, because he was an original authority. Oops again!
If I'm not mistake they kept asking the DOJ if they were going to prosecute.
Doj then refused
The Department of Justice said Friday that it has dropped its criminal investigation against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and will not press charges against him.
"However, prosecutors opened a criminal investigation and called witnesses before a grand jury in Washington.In mid-September, prosecutors indicated to McCabe’s attorneys that the government planned to seek an indictment against the former senior FBI official in connection with the findings by Justice Department and FBI watchdogs that he misled them.Defense attorneys are typically told of an expected indictment a day or two ahead of time. However, in McCabe’s case, no indictment was announced.Press reports said jurors who sit on the Washington-based grand jury who heard testimony were in the courthouse that week, but there was no indication any indictment was returned. The silence led to speculation that the grand jury might have produced a rare “no bill,” where jurors decline to vote an indictment recommended by prosecutors."They tried to indict him and failed, meaning they were less able to convince a grand jury that McCabe was guilty of a crime than they would be of convincing them that a ham sandwich had.Again you're taking speculation as fact.
Easily fooled larry should be your new name
Facts, not speculation:
Doj prosecutors impaneled a grand jury
Grand jury had testimony from DoJ witnesses
Doj prosecutors told McCabe to expect an indictment
....No indictment was issued by the grand jury
....DoJ eventually gave up on the pretense of charging McCabe
McCabe had every right to tell the press whatever he wanted about the case as he was an original authority
Read your quote. It says right there lead to speculation about a rare no bill.
see that word speculation?
The colon here indicates that what follows is the list of things that are fact and not speculation:
Facts, not speculation:
DoJ prosecutors impaneled a grand jury
Grand jury had testimony from DoJ witnesses
Doj prosecutors told McCabe to expect an indictment
....No indictment was issued by the grand jury
....DoJ eventually gave up on the pretense of charging McCabe
McCabe had every right to tell the press whatever he wanted about the case as he was an original authority
9/23/20 10:03 AM
9/23/20 10:05 AM
9/23/20 10:07 AM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1478
Posts: 1478
NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
9/23/20 10:09 AM
Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
Haha so now the ham sandwich is gonna be your defense for what's coming?
9/23/20 10:10 AM
NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
Haha so now the ham sandwich is gonna be your defense for what's coming?
Guess that means the hacking indictment is shit too then right?
9/23/20 10:14 AM
9/23/20 10:20 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 52209
Posts: 52209
NoNeed4aScreenName -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
Haha so now the ham sandwich is gonna be your defense for what's coming?
Guess that means the hacking indictment is shit too then right?
lol they could have hidden video of Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and Strzok sitting around a table openly discussing a plan for political assassination and Crazy Larry / orcus would find a way to justify it.
"They were just trying to protect our democracy! Sometimes drastic measures are needed and they were just thinking ouside the box!"
--Crazy Larry.
9/23/20 10:26 AM
Member Since: 3/3/18
Posts: 1480
Posts: 1480
NoNeed4aScreenName -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
Haha so now the ham sandwich is gonna be your defense for what's coming?
Guess that means the hacking indictment is shit too then right?
I'm just saying if you can get an indictment for a ham sandwich, as the OG has insisted for years to handwave the Mueller indictments, then they must have had no case at all against McCabe since they failed to get one.
Get it now?
9/23/20 10:32 AM
Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -NoNeed4aScreenName -Crazy Larry -NoNeed4aScreenName -The silence led to speculation....
But we know you just ignore things in the public record and go on what you believe and not what's real
They impaneled a grand jury to get an indictment, and they didn't get an indictment. Therefore the grand jury did not return an indictment, even though they would happily issue one for a ham sandwich. I'm not sure which part of that is speculation to you.
Haha so now the ham sandwich is gonna be your defense for what's coming?
Guess that means the hacking indictment is shit too then right?
I'm just saying if you can get an indictment for a ham sandwich, as the OG has insisted for years to handwave the Mueller indictments, then they must have had no case at all against McCabe since they failed to get one.
Get it now?
Haha get a jar ready to collect your liberal tears to sell them
9/23/20 10:40 AM
Member Since: 10/17/06
Posts: 3270
Posts: 3270
Muh Durham.......yawn........ still waiting....
maga
9/23/20 10:52 AM Edited: 9/23/20 10:54 AM
Edited: 9/23/20 10:54 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 52211
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 52211
Andersons'sPiece -Muh Durham.......yawn........ still waiting....
maga
The Inspector General report already revealed a lot more wrongdoing than I would have thought possible.. The 302 report as well.
9/23/20 11:00 AM Edited: 9/23/20 11:00 AM
Soup and Beer -Andersons'sPiece -Muh Durham.......yawn........ still waiting....
maga
The Inspector General report already revealed a lot more wrongdoing than I would have thought possible.. The 302 report as well.
And people fail to see the progression.
IG showed FBI wrong doing
Mueller cleared trump (not according to weissman I guess)
And now they are continuing what Obama's DOJ shut down around the time of the Ukraine coup
9/24/20 10:14 AM
Gotta admire Goldman’s talent for spin but this is A+: “But they also moved quietly, deploying informants and an undercover agent in part to keep the existence of the investigation from becoming public and affecting the 2016 election.”
Must not say spy! https://t.co/FhP4UYR7LI
9/24/20 2:19 PM
NEW: A source familiar w/ Durham’s investigation tells me that parts of what US Attorney John Huber of Utah was investigating in 2017 - involving the #ClintonFoundation- have been incorporated in #Durham's probe.
Huber was tapped by then-AG Jeff Sessionshttps://t.co/FWhLWpAER0
9/24/20 4:01 PM
SpunQ -
The @adamgoldmanNYT report on Durham reviewing Clinton Foundation investigation:
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) September 24, 2020
1) Agents/FBI managers seek subpoena of CF
2) Top DOJ criminal division officials deny request
Did Andrew Weissmann deny the subpoena? In 2016 he led the Fraud Section.@adamgoldmanNYT -any idea? pic.twitter.com/zxK1XhNSqm
I legit just came here to post this
