The Durham indictments prosecuting fake Trump 'collusion'

Doesn’t really matter. The lies served their purpose, the MAGAs believe them. It doesn’t matter how many sanctions these lawyers get against them, the damage is done.

Hopefully the sanctions will provide a future deterrent.

Or that the world of MAGA will run out of lawyers.

This was a favorite line, and a few lawyers have said that it is going to be well quoted in the future.

Not just initiated by a shotgun pleading, this was a shotgun lawsuit.

Judge Middlebrooks has gotten around to some of those other defendants and orders some more sanctions. Here’s the first paragraph…

This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.

Entire order.

So Alina Habba is on the hook for almost a million dollars this time and there’s still some defendants left.

Does she regret building a lawsuit around things John Durham insinuated but couldn’t back up and did not charge? Maybe she does this time…

Trump drops lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James

That lawsuit was also filed in Florida, some say in an attempt to get Aileen Cannon as presiding judge, and is also before Judge Middlebrooks.

In my fantasy world, Judge Loose Cannon is reduced to listening to drunks in traffic court 12 hours a day.

i don’t think there’s a federal traffic court, but I like where your head’s at.

:raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed:
:raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed:
:raised_hand_with_fingers_splayed:

I know! I know! I know!

It’s a dud!

Hey, man, why don’t you pop in here, do your rep a favor, and admit you were duped?

No, even better: worker’s comp litigation. That’s where they sent traffic court judges when they misbehave.

There sort of is. For traffic offenses on federal land. They’re handled by Magistrate Judges however.

The failing NY Times has published a damning review of the Durham “investigation,” which I post here with a gift link so everyone can read it.

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York Times found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.

The article is detailed and damning, and backs up with @Lance_Turbo and others have been saying in this thread, that this was a politically motivated hack investigation, pushed by a partisan Attorney General, that resulted in absolutely nothing but a waste of years and millions of $$ (and the tarnishing of what was once Durham’s good reputation).

In particular, there is this astonishing detail about a serious and credible tip the justice department received from Italian authorities about alleged Trump financial crimes:

But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

There’s a lot more in the article about how Barr and Durham obfuscated this criminal investigation into Trump, but I don’t want to over-quote. I wonder how thorough this supposed “investigation” really was.

Good article and really highlights the tenuous straws they were grasping at. Both Barr and Durham ended their careers as Trump stooges.

Can’t wait for the “report” to finally come out (in another two weeks?). All websites that post it will be required to have a deflating balloon sound play when it is opened.

Calling it “a dud” is looking rather charitable, actually.

Thanks so much for the gift link. Everyone should read this who has any interest in the truth of this matter. Absolutely stunning.

And we’ll need to know more to know for sure, but it looks like Durham may have actually found one crime*, which he then covered up because Trump was the criminal.

*Durham was presented Clinesmith’s crime gift wrapped by Horowitz.

Of course, few will follow up and read to learn the truth of the situation at this late date. It’s old news now, except to a few of us who followed the travesty closely and understood Bill Barr was a corrupt and untrustworthy AG throughout his appointment.

Still, some consequences may inure to Mr. Barr and his lackey, Mr. Durham eventually. I’d like to see them held accountable. Which, considering how many investigations DOJ is currently juggling with its severely strained resources, could take awhile.

Just a quick derail mention that Barr was treated with kid gloves - other than a quick wrist-slap about his mischaracterization of the Mueller Report - by Bill Maher last week.

Yes and no. At least Mahar brought it up and called it a mischaracterization. That’s more than most interviewers have done.

This is my favorite part of this whole bullshit saga. Barr told Durham to trump up some charges on Trump’s enemies, and when Durham started digging, it pointed to possible criminality by Trump. So, Barr put the kibosh on that.

Right? Just straightforward, naked corruption.

So many people fell for Barr and Durham’s obvious and not so obvious bullshit. Many still believe things they said. E.g. the OP of this thread believes that Mueller didn’t find any collusion.

The problem was that Maher didn’t have the facts at hand to refute what Barr was lying about–he needed someone like Andrew Weissman on his panel, if not actually sitting at his elbow, to set the record straight. As it was, he provided Barr a platform to spin his BS on.

agreed.