So far, there’s no publicly available evidence showing that Brennan, Comey, Clinton, or others made knowingly false statements under oath.
Much of their testimony has been consistent with the findings of multiple investigations, including the Mueller Report and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.
2. Ambiguity vs. Perjury.
Discrepancies or differing interpretations of intelligence are not the same as lying.
To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prosecutors must show:
The statement was material.
The person knew it was false.
The person intended to deceive.
That’s a high bar, especially when dealing with complex intelligence assessments and classified materials.
3. Durham’s Own Findings.
Even John Durham’s final report—while critical of the FBI—did not recommend charges for lying to Congress.
He interviewed Brennan, Clinton, and others, and found no prosecutable false statements.
4. Political Optics vs. Legal Substance.
This grand jury may be more about symbolic accountability than actual indictments.
It’s possible the goal is to create a narrative of wrongdoing, even if no charges stick.
🧩 The Real Puzzle.
If no lies were told, then the grand jury risks becoming a political theater, not a legal reckoning. And if it hinges on reinterpretations of testimony years after the fact, it may collapse under scrutiny.
[via Copilot]
Copilot says the charges "may fizzle", but I say they will definitely 100 percent fizzle. There will be no convictions re the "RussiaGate Hoax". The reason being that it wasn't a hoax. donald trump's campaign has been confirmed to have colluded with Russia.
🧠 Why These Allegations May Fizzle...
ReplyDelete1. No Clear Falsehoods Identified.
So far, there’s no publicly available evidence showing that Brennan, Comey, Clinton, or others made knowingly false statements under oath.
Much of their testimony has been consistent with the findings of multiple investigations, including the Mueller Report and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report.
2. Ambiguity vs. Perjury.
Discrepancies or differing interpretations of intelligence are not the same as lying.
To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prosecutors must show:
The statement was material.
The person knew it was false.
The person intended to deceive.
That’s a high bar, especially when dealing with complex intelligence assessments and classified materials.
3. Durham’s Own Findings.
Even John Durham’s final report—while critical of the FBI—did not recommend charges for lying to Congress.
He interviewed Brennan, Clinton, and others, and found no prosecutable false statements.
4. Political Optics vs. Legal Substance.
This grand jury may be more about symbolic accountability than actual indictments.
It’s possible the goal is to create a narrative of wrongdoing, even if no charges stick.
🧩 The Real Puzzle.
If no lies were told, then the grand jury risks becoming a political theater, not a legal reckoning. And if it hinges on reinterpretations of testimony years after the fact, it may collapse under scrutiny.
[via Copilot]
Copilot says the charges "may fizzle", but I say they will definitely 100 percent fizzle. There will be no convictions re the "RussiaGate Hoax". The reason being that it wasn't a hoax. donald trump's campaign has been confirmed to have colluded with Russia.