My guess is that it is No Labels. The Post is quoted in the Wiki article about it that it is raising $70 million. I love the idea, but google it, the donors are overwhelmingly heavily conservative (for example Harlan Crow and Rupert Murdoch). These don't seem like people wanting a centrist party.
Sounds like a pretty good source. Whoever it was, got it right: Clinton did, in fact, do that.
What might very well have happened is this: Steele went out looking for info and talked to Russian sources. Those Russian sources fed him a line about Trump, which he put in his report and passed it on and Clinton ran with it. Those Russian sources (or others handling them) then reported to the CIA about the Clinton plan to tarnish Trump. (I think Rachel McAdams does something similar in Mean Girls, which should be watched by all spy agencies everywhere).
He found the 2 things I listed. The report says there was definitely bias from a procedural and policy standpoint. Probably even legal.
During my career I had to deal with the FDA, OSHA and DOL.
No Labels? Awful name. Forget it. I want some name like Eagle Fang if I'm signing up.
“Then he says that the FBI had an affirmative duty to look into this information. What he takes issue with is the waythe investigation was opened.”
Clinton didn't run with Steele at all. The campaign dropped it. Steele brought it to the FBI himself.
I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your criticism here. He explicitly said the FBI should have investigated the intelligence. And nowhere does he say an investigation isn't warranted. I'm correct about that. Instead, he repeatedly reminds us that the FBI skipped more cautionary investigative steps to leap to a "full investigation." The implication seems to be that the FBI should have started with only a "preliminary investigation."
I'll not deny the appearance of bias. That's clearly in the report. It's the other leaps people are making that simply aren't justified. And I am right that Durham is at least partially responsible for that because of his use of loaded language and his heavy anti-Clinton bias.
Because in his mind he’s a more successful attorney than you and much more intelligent.
Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed this closely.
nypost.com
Imagine what the heck people like the democrats in charge now will do with thousands more IRS agents?
I thought Sussmann was pushing the Alfa Bank thing, which had nothing to do with Steele.Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed this closely.
I found this article (by a recognized Repub partisan), that says Durham's previous charging docs implied that the Clinton campaign was pushing the Steele dossier with the govt leading up to the election:
'In September, Durham indicted former Perkins-Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for making a false statement to the FBI while peddling Trump-Russia allegations that the bureau eventually found unsubstantiated. Durham alleges that Sussmann concealed that he was working for the Clinton campaign and a tech executive who was hoping for an important government job if Clinton was elected.
Durham’s charging instruments suggest that the Clinton campaign used its agents to peddle the Trump-Russia rumors to the government and the media, then used the fact that Trump was being investigated as part of its campaign messaging."
Arrest illustrates how the Steele dossier was a political dirty trick orchestrated by Hillary Clinton
Special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Igor Danchenko illustrates that he has his sights set on the Clinton campaign.
Here is the Wiki, of course it has footnotes if you go to the article:Do you have a link for this? I haven't followed this closely.
I found this article (by a recognized Repub partisan), that says Durham's previous charging docs implied that the Clinton campaign was pushing the Steele dossier with the govt leading up to the election:
'In September, Durham indicted former Perkins-Coie attorney Michael Sussmann for making a false statement to the FBI while peddling Trump-Russia allegations that the bureau eventually found unsubstantiated. Durham alleges that Sussmann concealed that he was working for the Clinton campaign and a tech executive who was hoping for an important government job if Clinton was elected.
Durham’s charging instruments suggest that the Clinton campaign used its agents to peddle the Trump-Russia rumors to the government and the media, then used the fact that Trump was being investigated as part of its campaign messaging."
Arrest illustrates how the Steele dossier was a political dirty trick orchestrated by Hillary Clinton
Special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Igor Danchenko illustrates that he has his sights set on the Clinton campaign.
No, he didn’t. He said they had an obligation to further “examine” that intelligence, which you are conflating with an investigation.
Or he was paid to make it up out of whole cloth and then found some rooskies to use, after the fact.
No, I'm saying he didn't disagree that any investigation at all was warranted.
Ok.
Mods stirring the pot never happens around here
I don’t feel I’ve made a “leap”. Those seem to be the conclusions (that’s probably not the best word) of the report.
I’ll agree Durham didn’t report a lot of new stuff. Much if what he described was already out there, but largely ignored by the MSM. It was put in the Whoop dee f*cking doo.file along with Hillary’s emails, Hunter’s lap top and Joe’s bribes.
My fault for being sloppy. I was on my phone.
I'm not trying to make the FBI look better. One of my very first comments was to the effect that this looked bad for the FBI. I'm just pushing back against the idea being floated that the report somehow exposes some huge deal that we should all be outraged about.
I think part (not close to all) of the problem was the FBI overestimating Steele. He sent the info also to MI6 and CIA. Both deal with that sort of unsourced international info far more often.
No, I don't think you've made any crazy leaps. Your posting in this thread has been pretty straightforward. My only complaint with your posting was when you quoted from Durham's Executive Summary a section that is so misrepresentative of the facts as actually reported in the body of the report, it flies well past the line of investigative malpractice and right into the region of intentional falsehood:
But, of course, that's not your fault. You were just taking Durham at his word.
That's a good point. Another possibility I must concede is that, had the FBI done their job correctly, they would have still opened up the investigation, but also would have wrapped it up long before Mueller became a necessity.
The "Clinton Plan" as referenced in the Durham Report has nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
In federal court it's usually the defense attorneys who are pressuring their clients to plead. That's because acquittals in federal court are exceedingly rare. The fact that both cases Durham took to trial ended in acquittals speaks to how shitty the cases were.
That was a significant part of the problem. The FBI never verified any if it, and by using Steele info as part of its verified application for FISA warrants breached reasonable standards of care. The FBI “overestimating” Steele was not a minor matter. Steele gave Comey, McCabe, and Strzok exactly what they wanted to hear.
In our system…prosecutors are supposed to be forced to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This was a win for our system. It shouldn’t be seen as a knock on Durham.
I used to work around this woman who was batshit crazy. Her husband was some high up in FDA dealing with imports and he supposedly had secret service protection because of his job. We never knew, she also thought that a ''train'' that was actually a garden tractor with a costume that gave kids rides around a garden center needed registered with homeland security since it was called a train
The same Brennan who denied under oath knowing who commissioned the report? Source?
Of course it is. The dossier (which was already in the hands of the FBI when Brennan went to see Obama) is what the Russian intelligence was referencing.
Yes, "a win for our system" sounds great. It's a lovely platitude. Now let's talk about the real world. Every prosecutor prides himself or herself on their conviction rate. That's particularly true in federal court. Considerable time, effort and resources go into every case that's tried, and anything less than a conviction (with the exception of a hung jury which still provides hope for a conviction down the road) is deemed an abject failure by the entire prosecution team. If a criminal case results in an acquittal, it's devastating for the prosecution - - every time. It means either they had a weak case that should never have been tried or somebody on the prosecution team seriously messed up. I have absolutely no doubt that Durham was devastated by the two acquittals and certainly viewed the losses as a reflection on him.
Dude. You're completely lost. You look dumber with every post.
