It's as annoying as the friends who demand links to every claim you make and they're not happy unless it's a "legitimate" news - and even that friend knows "legitimate" news is horse shit.
I don't have any issues with asking for a source. I have an issue with someone arguing with me and dismissing everything out of hand because they'd never heard it before & won't take 2 min to research. Or when they demand you provide them with a source but discount the source you give them because it's "right wing" or anything not the MSM
The point is, this person asks for a source unless its "legitimate news", where in lies the problem. They gladly guzzle all the disinfo coming from these "legitimate news" without realising they are being hypocritical in holding alternate news sources to a different standard, which is how main stream mocking bird operation thrives.
The point is, this person asks for a source unless its "legitimate news", where in lies the problem. They gladly guzzle all the disinfo coming from these "legitimate news" without realising they are being hypocritical in holding alternate news sources to a different standard, which is how main stream mocking bird operation thrives.
Yeah reminds me of my libtard friends who say, "yeah just go read the Mueller Report. You will see Trump is guilty" they are too fucking lazy show me specifically some stupid point that means nothing!
Okay. We have established there are multiple pictures of Durham to choose from. If they "seem fake", the burden lies upon you to prove they are fake. They've always been there.
If that's not enough for you, here is the New York Times captioning a picture, from his swearing in back in 2018, in an article from this year.
The burden of proof is literally on you and your feelings, fren. May the odds be forever in your favor.
Multiple. Less than one handful. The burden of proof on me is just as big of a burden on you. I didn't claim the photos were fake. They just seem suspect. The same way every other MSM interview looks like green screen CGI garbage.
Durham is an elusive enigma. He's indicting now and these characters now have to show up in a specific location for court yet a photo or video of Durham hasn't been captured by anyone. Like the loch Ness monster.
To me it seems Durham is either someone else entirely or a code name for the team that is involved in the special counsel investigation. As you stated the VERY limited number of photos/video is extremely odd for someone who was allegedly involved in high profile cases in the past.
Google him. You won't find details about most of his cases because they happened before the internet. Many of the cases since then were mob-related. He's married and has four sons, two of whom are also attorneys.
There are a lot of photos of him online at various events. You can google those too.
So either do some research yourself or remain ignorant. No one's going to put together a documentary video just for you.
It was illegal to video in a courtroom, so those videos don't exist for any prosecutor.
It's not just a "handful of photos." You can google images and find a lot more than have been linked on here.
He was in newspapers a lot. Here's an example from the "Hartford Courant," Hartford, CT, March 19, 1998, p. 33:
"Guilty Pleas In Credit Scheme
Two members of a credit-card ring have pleaded guilty in federal court in Hartford to using stolen Discover cards to charge cash advances at the Foxwoods Resort Casino, U.S. Attorney John H. Durham said."
Another one from the same paper on June 5, 1998, p. 12:
"The memorandum signed by Deputy U.S. Attorney John H. Durham is the strongest salvo yet in the strange turf war surrounding a June 15, 1997, gang killing in Pope Park."
That was part of a major article that mentioned Durham a number of times.
In another edition of that paper, January 28, 2001, p. 32, there is a large drawing of Durham by a court illustrator, Leo Tsokalas. The caption reads: "Prosecutor John H. Durham here depicted by a court illustrator, avoids the media spotlight, but his sensational case against FBI agents and police agencies in Boston makes him the white knight in one of the country's worst law enforcement scandals."
The headline of that article was: "Durham Builds Sensational Case Against FBI."
So it looks like I bothered to try, but you didn't. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands more references. I'm not going to list them all.
The last quote makes him seem like our guy and the perfect person for his job.
Ha, being there only seems to be the one picture of him floating around, it'd be funny to print out a few and go stick em in picture frames at a store. Or wallets.
We don't call people tards. We call tards 'tards.' We have the "developmentally disabled," now, hence, the word 'tards' is now free to retake its original meaning.
I called a lefty 'friend' out on the Steele dossier that he was so confident in about a month ago and his response was "I'm too lazy to look it up."
God, please bless me with the endless amount of patience I apparently need to deal with these people.
Intellectual dishonesty. Not interested in truth, only feeding the narrative of what they believe.
Gotta convince people that truth matters. It’s hard to do.
Or get them to admit they don’t care, so when they come after you in the future you can say you don’t care what intellectually dishonest people think.
Nice good one, agreed
It's as annoying as the friends who demand links to every claim you make and they're not happy unless it's a "legitimate" news - and even that friend knows "legitimate" news is horse shit.
Nothing wrong with asking for a source. In case you don’t know just because someone makes a tweet you agree with doesn’t make it a fact
I don't have any issues with asking for a source. I have an issue with someone arguing with me and dismissing everything out of hand because they'd never heard it before & won't take 2 min to research. Or when they demand you provide them with a source but discount the source you give them because it's "right wing" or anything not the MSM
The point is, this person asks for a source unless its "legitimate news", where in lies the problem. They gladly guzzle all the disinfo coming from these "legitimate news" without realising they are being hypocritical in holding alternate news sources to a different standard, which is how main stream mocking bird operation thrives.
The point is, this person asks for a source unless its "legitimate news", where in lies the problem. They gladly guzzle all the disinfo coming from these "legitimate news" without realising they are being hypocritical in holding alternate news sources to a different standard, which is how main stream mocking bird operation thrives.
The key is this, there’s no more convincing the left. Save your breath.
Yeah reminds me of my libtard friends who say, "yeah just go read the Mueller Report. You will see Trump is guilty" they are too fucking lazy show me specifically some stupid point that means nothing!
It's the same reaction as closing your eyes, plugging your ears with your fingers, and yelling out, "LA LA LA LA..."
Chomp chomp chomp!! let’s do this!!!!
I've seen as many actual photos of Durham as I've seen of Bill Gates wearing a mask.
You haven't looked very hard. I googled images of Durham and found 7 or 8 different ones very quickly.
They seem fake. Also, he was the DA of Connecticut for a few years too starting in 2018. Why nothing from those days?
Listen, I'm on board with everything but I still continue to speculate and question because confirmation is a good thing!
Let me make this very easy for you then:
Okay. We have established there are multiple pictures of Durham to choose from. If they "seem fake", the burden lies upon you to prove they are fake. They've always been there.
If that's not enough for you, here is the New York Times captioning a picture, from his swearing in back in 2018, in an article from this year.
The burden of proof is literally on you and your feelings, fren. May the odds be forever in your favor.
Multiple. Less than one handful. The burden of proof on me is just as big of a burden on you. I didn't claim the photos were fake. They just seem suspect. The same way every other MSM interview looks like green screen CGI garbage.
Durham is an elusive enigma. He's indicting now and these characters now have to show up in a specific location for court yet a photo or video of Durham hasn't been captured by anyone. Like the loch Ness monster.
Okay. They seem real to me.
/discussion
It won't confirm itself. If you want to confirm it, do the research. You have to go where the information is located.
I've done the research and same as you I haven't found Jack diddle beyond the handful of pics we've all seen Durham had somehow avoided all press.
There are lots of photos. Just google it. I did and found 8 or 10 unique photos in the first page of results.
Name checks out.
Right? Enjoy the show! 🍿
The one classic photo where everyone is layered as if they are standing on steps behind him. That's like a staged elementary school photo on a tier.
& that's about it. & maybe 2 since this investigation began?
Oh that's brilliant!! That's why Garland can't fire him! He doesn't know his real name! Brilliant!
To me it seems Durham is either someone else entirely or a code name for the team that is involved in the special counsel investigation. As you stated the VERY limited number of photos/video is extremely odd for someone who was allegedly involved in high profile cases in the past.
Your words are as empty as your name.
Yeah that would not be the first time geotus did a head fake. u/#Quiet
Google him. You won't find details about most of his cases because they happened before the internet. Many of the cases since then were mob-related. He's married and has four sons, two of whom are also attorneys.
There are a lot of photos of him online at various events. You can google those too.
So either do some research yourself or remain ignorant. No one's going to put together a documentary video just for you.
It was illegal to video in a courtroom, so those videos don't exist for any prosecutor.
It's not just a "handful of photos." You can google images and find a lot more than have been linked on here.
He was in newspapers a lot. Here's an example from the "Hartford Courant," Hartford, CT, March 19, 1998, p. 33:
"Guilty Pleas In Credit Scheme
Two members of a credit-card ring have pleaded guilty in federal court in Hartford to using stolen Discover cards to charge cash advances at the Foxwoods Resort Casino, U.S. Attorney John H. Durham said."
Another one from the same paper on June 5, 1998, p. 12:
"The memorandum signed by Deputy U.S. Attorney John H. Durham is the strongest salvo yet in the strange turf war surrounding a June 15, 1997, gang killing in Pope Park."
That was part of a major article that mentioned Durham a number of times.
In another edition of that paper, January 28, 2001, p. 32, there is a large drawing of Durham by a court illustrator, Leo Tsokalas. The caption reads: "Prosecutor John H. Durham here depicted by a court illustrator, avoids the media spotlight, but his sensational case against FBI agents and police agencies in Boston makes him the white knight in one of the country's worst law enforcement scandals."
The headline of that article was: "Durham Builds Sensational Case Against FBI."
So it looks like I bothered to try, but you didn't. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands more references. I'm not going to list them all.
The last quote makes him seem like our guy and the perfect person for his job.
The internet includes records of things from before the internet you know...
Very little compared to what existed before the internet.
Whitey Bulger knows who he is
DEPORT!!!!!
Damn!!!! GEOTUS looks pretty damn sexy in that pic!
Ha, being there only seems to be the one picture of him floating around, it'd be funny to print out a few and go stick em in picture frames at a store. Or wallets.
I honestly say it as a joke but he was just up at the capitol the other day wasn't he? lol
We don't call people tards. We call tards 'tards.' We have the "developmentally disabled," now, hence, the word 'tards' is now free to retake its original meaning.