Originally Posted by 95sn
LOL, he didnt "prove" anything, did he? It is just an indictment for lying about a source and employer. Thats it. If Im wrong, point out where he "proved" these things. He has wasted untold taxpayer $ for over 3 years and has 2 minor, misdemeanor indictments and zero convictions. Why would Clinton, as you say , spy on Obama? it was obama in office at the time. Something makes no sense, and its you.
Durham, still at it three years later, recently filed documents that Fox News and others interpreted as containing explosive allegations: that the Clinton campaign paid a company to spy on the Trump Organization, and that the spying included mining internet data from the White House while Trump was in office.
Found this to educate you.
But in fact, Durham hasn’t said that. He hasn’t alleged Clinton’s campaign paid anyone to spy on Trump, and he didn’t allege there was a crime committed related to internet data-mining. The implication is that, if anyone did carry out such mining, it was legal.
Most crucially, though, Fox and the rest claimed Durham’s filing alleged that mining of White House data happened while Trump was president. This is the crux of the whole right-wing “spying” trope. But in fact, Durham’s filings don’t say when it happened. Subsequent information, as reported in The New York Times on Thursday, indicates it actually happened in 2016. Meaning the real victim of this supposedly execution-worthy crime (which, again, even the prosecutor isn’t calling a crime) wasn’t Trump at all — but Barack Obama.
Will Fox News still be outraged?
You failed to answer the main event, you believe obvious voter fraud BS and refuse to believe actual convictions. Bizarro world. Up is down, down is up.
Who wants Clinton investigated on what? being old, ugly and cranky?
If your tin hat gets any tighter, boom.
|