Durham probe

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Bias?

“The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a notable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. As described in Section IV.B, in the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the election. In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution. In one such matter….FBI Headquarters and Department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated”

Did you miss the part where he admitted there were some key differences between the two situations?

We actually had intelligence that Russia was meddling in our election and that Putin favored Trump. That context makes the sudden appearance of allegations of collusion much more actionable, no matter how shaky they turned out to be.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Bias?

“The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a notable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. As described in Section IV.B, in the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the election. In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution. In one such matter….FBI Headquarters and Department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated”

You are wasting your time.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Good question. But I think you are falling into the same trap as others in concluding that the investigation was entirely unjustified. That's not the case. There were specific aspects of the investigation which were handled poorly. Carter Page for example. But Durham falls well short of finding that the entire investigation never should have happened.

Wait, hold up. You’re saying that even though Durham pretty explicitly said that the investigation shouldn’t have been started, he DIDN’T specifically say that it shouldn’t have happened?

 

[Spartans9312]

Did you miss the part where he admitted there were some key differences between the two situations?

We actually had intelligence that Russia was meddling in our election and that Putin favored Trump. That context makes the sudden appearance of allegations of collusion much more actionable, no matter how shaky they turned out to be.

How did the FBI handle…”highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server”

 

[stollcpa]

Can we compare this to Whitewater? Whitewater came about because David Hale said the Clinton's were involved. David Hale said nothing to the FBI five years before when he was interviewed about Madison Guaranty. He said nothing when he went to the DA looking to plea bargain, the DA turned him down. Suddenly he recalls Clinton's involvement.

I get the Clintons are slimy. I am not disagreeing. But the entire Starr investigation resulted, similarly, in just process crime convictions - Bill Clinton lied about a totally unrelated matter. That was serious, and he deserved punishment for it. But it had nothing at all to do with Whitewater. Starr spent a whole lot of money and time and couldn't charge Clinton with anything related to Whitewater.

If Trump had been charged by someone under felony investigation seeking a plea deal, who couldn't produce one other witness nor one sheet of paper as evidence, conservatives would be angry.

If Clinton had been accused of being in collusion based on what the FBI had on Trump, liberals would be angry.

Both cases illustrate a problem in the system. Candidates can't be above the law, but they can't be beneath it.

There are huge similarities but I doubt many will see them. We can't make the standard for launching an investigation be so low that an Ouji Board response triggers one.

Amazing the extent people go to explain this away. This was a hit job started by the Clinton Campaign and they got the FBI to finish the job.

The democrats have now established a standard that the FBI is a political arm of the party in power. Hell of a country we’ve become. Should I say Banana Republic?

 

[Bowlmania]

According to the Durham Report, the plan by Hillary Clinton to create a false story linking Donald Trump to Russia was briefed in August of 2016 by CIA Director John Brennan to President Obama, VP Biden, AG Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director Comey.

You're badly misinformed.

Here’s a tip. Carefully re-read your link again. Then add a couple of words to your vocabulary by looking up the definitions of “purported” and “alleged.” Next, try to establish context for the excerpt you’ve cited by reading more of the Report. The “Clinton Plan” - - - the idea that Clinton’s campaign was working to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services” - - was a Russian allegation. It’s a claim that Durham, after four years, was unable to verify. You probably don’t know this but Clinton cooperated with the probe, meeting with Durham last May for a lengthy interview. The end result is that Durham was forced to concede that the evidence “did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense” on the part of Clinton or anyone in her campaign.

With respect to the FBI, I’m not defending them. They fvcked up in multiple ways in 2016 and early 2017. That’s not surprising considering who was at the helm. But Comey was an equal opportunity fvck-up. He hurt Clinton at least as badly as he did Trump. Frankly, the media coverage of Clinton’s emails in the days leading up to the 2016 election, thanks to Comey and his public letter to Congress on October 28, was exponentially more extensive than anything pertaining to Trump and Russia. Even Trump's Senior Counselor Kellyanne Conway subsequently acknowledged what many already knew - - that Comey “swung” the election, to use her word, in Trump’s favor.

The good news I suppose is that Durham, in his report, comments that he’s not proposing “any wholesale changes” in FBI or DOJ policies. “The answer is not the creation of new rules, but a renewed fidelity to the old,” he said. This should help- - - all senior executives overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation have since left the FBI as a result of termination, resignation or retirement. The current FBI Director, Trump appointee Chris Wray, has restored integrity to the Bureau.

So after four years of the Durham probe, there’s no “Crime of the Century,” as conman Trump predicted. No Pulitzers for coverage of the Durham investigation, as Trump also foretold. No smoking gun. Just an investigation that closed with a whimper after one guilty plea (and no jail time) for a sleazy FBI attorney who altered an email, and two failed criminal prosecutions ending in acquittals. But keep telling yourself that this investigation really blew the lid off the “deep state,” or that it’s proof we’ve become a banana republic or that it’s evidence of some other bullshit conspiracy theory to which you subscribe.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Can we compare this to Whitewater? Whitewater came about because David Hale said the Clinton's were involved. David Hale said nothing to the FBI five years before when he was interviewed about Madison Guaranty. He said nothing when he went to the DA looking to plea bargain, the DA turned him down. Suddenly he recalls Clinton's involvement.

I get the Clintons are slimy. I am not disagreeing. But the entire Starr investigation resulted, similarly, in just process crime convictions - Bill Clinton lied about a totally unrelated matter. That was serious, and he deserved punishment for it. But it had nothing at all to do with Whitewater. Starr spent a whole lot of money and time and couldn't charge Clinton with anything related to Whitewater.

If Trump had been charged by someone under felony investigation seeking a plea deal, who couldn't produce one other witness nor one sheet of paper as evidence, conservatives would be angry.

If Clinton had been accused of being in collusion based on what the FBI had on Trump, liberals would be angry.

Both cases illustrate a problem in the system. Candidates can't be above the law, but they can't be beneath it.

There are huge similarities but I doubt many will see them. We can't make the standard for launching an investigation be so low that an Ouji Board response triggers one.

I’m pretty tired of that “nobody is above the law” baloney. We know in our hearts and minds that’s not true. It‘s used only to justify nit-picky prosecutions and only in the context of a Republican.

Your post does raise a worthwhile question. Take the Paul Managort prosecution. The feds already looked at that and decided the prosecution was too iffy and there were better ways to use available resources. Then along comes Mueller. His sole mission was to get Trump and anybody who helped him. With a huge staff and a blank check, Mueller goes after Manafort. Manafort was prosecuted because of Trump and because of special counsel. Had Manafort not been associated with Trump, he never would have been prosecuted . Is that a wise use of resources?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wait, hold up. You’re saying that even though Durham pretty explicitly said that the investigation shouldn’t have been started, he DIDN’T specifically say that it shouldn’t have happened?

Correct. He wants you to think he said it. But read the relevant section in the report. He says that the FBI opened the investigation not only because of the Australian intelligence, but because of it in the context of the WikiLeaks DNC leak and Trump's Russian emails comment. Then he says that the FBI had an affirmative duty to look into this information. What he takes issue with is the way the investigation was opened.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Amazing the extent people go to explain this away. This was a hit job started by the Clinton Campaign and they got the FBI to finish the job.

The democrats have now established a standard that the FBI is a political arm of the party in power. Hell of a country we’ve become. Should I say Banana Republic?

So you are okay with explaining away Whitewater because you don't like the Clintons?

No, the government should not be involved going after its citizens based on politics, not Trump, not Clinton.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're badly misinformed.

Here’s a tip. Carefully re-read your link again. Then add a couple of words to your vocabulary by looking up the definitions of “purported” and “alleged.” Next, try to establish context for the excerpt you’ve cited by reading more of the Report. The “Clinton Plan” - - - the idea that Clinton’s campaign was working to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services” - - was a Russian allegation. It’s a claim that Durham, after four years, was unable to verify. You probably don’t know this but Clinton cooperated with the probe, meeting with Durham last May for a lengthy interview. The end result is that Durham was forced to concede that the evidence “did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense” on the part of Clinton or anyone in her campaign.

With respect to the FBI, I’m not defending them. They fvcked up in multiple ways in 2016 and early 2017. That’s not surprising considering who was at the helm. But Comey was an equal opportunity fvck-up. He hurt Clinton at least as badly as he did Trump. Frankly, the media coverage of Clinton’s emails in the days leading up to the 2016 election, thanks to Comey and his public letter to Congress on October 28, was exponentially more extensive than anything pertaining to Trump and Russia. Even Trump's Senior Counselor Kellyanne Conway subsequently acknowledged what many already knew - - that Comey “swung” the election, to use her word, in Trump’s favor.

The good news I suppose is that Durham, in his report, comments that he’s not proposing “any wholesale changes” in FBI or DOJ policies. “The answer is not the creation of new rules, but a renewed fidelity to the old,” he said. This should help- - - all senior executives overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation have since left the FBI as a result of termination, resignation or retirement. The current FBI Director, Trump appointee Chris Wray, has restored integrity to the Bureau.

So after four years of the Durham probe, there’s no “Crime of the Century,” as conman Trump predicted. No Pulitzers for coverage of the Durham investigation, as Trump also foretold. No smoking gun. Just an investigation that closed with a whimper after one guilty plea (and no jail time) for a sleazy FBI attorney who altered an email, and two failed criminal prosecutions ending with acquittals. But keep telling yourself that this investigation really blew the lid off the “deep state,” or that it’s proof we’ve become a banana republic or that it’s evidence of some other bullshit conspiracy theory to which you subscribe.

Whether Clinton’s conduct amounted to a provable criminal offense is not the test for running a fair, descent, and honest campaign. We are on the fast track to scummy politics.

 

[tbone6004]

View embedded media

The real reason Gym Jordan and his cohorts hated the Mueller investigation: A total of thirty-four individuals and three companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials. Compare that to Durham's failure which resulted in one guilty plea by an attorney who altered a legal affidavit and two cases which resulted in acquittals. This report is nothing but an attempt by Durham to placate his Republican masters. The Russian involvement of Trump campaign officials and Trump associates is well documented in the Mueller report. I doubt that any one on this forum had read it like I have.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

I think we’ve hit rock bottom with both parties. They’re both playing the same game. Sad. I read there is a movement for a third moderate party. I think they’ve raised a 100 mil. Not nearly enough but a recognition people are growing tired of the bs

Post the link. I want in.

 

[stollcpa]

Wait, hold up. You’re saying that even though Durham pretty explicitly said that the investigation shouldn’t have been started, he DIDN’T specifically say that it shouldn’t have happened?

You’re wasting your time. Goat will get the last word.

 

[Bowlmania]

Whether Clinton’s conduct amounted to a provable criminal offense is not the test for running a fair, descent, and honest campaign. We are on the fast track to scummy politics.

Read the whole post, Einstein.

The investigation was pretty much a bust.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How did the FBI handle…”highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server”

"Trusted foreign source?" If that a direct quote from the intro? Highly misleading. In the relevant section of the report he calls it "Russian intelligence analysis" which the US IC does not know the accuracy of or the extent it might be "exaggeration or fabrication." LOL.

 

[stollcpa]

So you are okay with explaining away Whitewater because you don't like the Clintons?

No, the government should not be involved going after its citizens based on politics, not Trump, not Clinton.

Agree

 

[Spartans9312]

"Trusted foreign source?" If that a direct quote from the intro? Highly misleading. In the relevant section of the report he calls it "Russian intelligence analysis" which the US IC does not know the accuracy of or the extent it might be "exaggeration or fabrication." LOL.

“Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Comey and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action”

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

“Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral memorandum to Director Comey and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action”

Again, a claim made by Russian intelligence versus a claim made by Australian intelligence. I can't believe they weren't handled exactly the same way!

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Yeah the FBI was too quick to open an investigation. Whoop dee f*cking doo. Like I said, wet fart.

I think you are underselling how significant this is going to be. Remember, that as a result of this investigation opening, the FBI, reporting to the Pres of one party, was actively surveilling an ongoing presidential campaign by the other major party. That's a big deal.

More generally, and by analogy, the reason the standard for judges is so high--appearance of impropriety--regarding their deciding issues is because a lot of their legitimacy stems from their ability to stay above the fray. That judges are now losing that appearance is causing a problem that we see with people claiming the courts are illegitimate.

I think most people want or expect the same standard of objectivity and lack of partisanship in law enforcement (including DOJ, which is an even trickier subject). When it doesn't happen, as it appears here, regardless of the specifics and fineries of language, partisans are going to feel angry--as we see in this thread (and as we saw when Comey investigated Clinton for the emails prior to his unusual public statement "exonerating" her). I think we have to accept as fact (and not dismiss it as "oh they're just being stupid") that partisans exist and that they might get angry at the appearance of impropriety when dealing with the machinery of law enforcement.

This anger can lead to a loss of confidence and perceived legitimacy in the organization--here the FBI. That is going to affect things going forward--from how juries respond to them, to judges, to future Presidents and Congress regarding their findings and recommendations. It's also going to affect the public confidence in governmental institutions.

Most of what I'm pointing out is unquantifiable. But the vague nature of the report's findings as to what exactly happened and why it's wrong is going to be seized upon and used against the FBI and govt agencies for decades. It was by liberals pissed at how the FBI surveilled King, et al. and it's going to shift (has shifted, actually) now to conseratives. I don't think that's a good thing for the FBI or for our nation since they do serve an important role (although I think that role should be curtailed).

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Correct. He wants you to think he said it. But read the relevant section in the report. He says that the FBI opened the investigation not only because of the Australian intelligence, but because of it in the context of the WikiLeaks DNC leak and Trump's Russian emails comment. Then he says that the FBI had an affirmative duty to look into this information. What he takes issue with is the way the investigation was opened.

What section of the report is this in?

Also, for the record, Trumps comments on hilaries email was CLEARLY. A joke and should never have been used as justification for investigating anything.

It was far less credible than you’re implying Russian intelligence is.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you are underselling how significant this is going to be. Remember, that as a result of this investigation opening, the FBI, reporting to the Pres of one party, was actively surveilling an ongoing presidential campaign by the other major party. That's a big deal.

More generally, and by analogy, the reason the standard for judges is so high--appearance of impropriety--regarding their deciding issues is because a lot of their legitimacy stems from their ability to stay above the fray. That judges are now losing that appearance is causing a problem that we see with people claiming the courts are illegitimate.

I think most people want or expect the same standard of objectivity and lack of partisanship in law enforcement (including DOJ, which is an even trickier subject). When it doesn't happen, as it appears here, regardless of the specifics and fineries of language, partisans are going to feel angry--as we see in this thread (and as we saw when Comey investigated Clinton for the emails prior to his unusual public statement "exonerating" her). I think we have to accept as fact (and not dismiss it as "oh they're just being stupid") that partisans exist and that they might get angry at the appearance of impropriety when dealing with the machinery of law enforcement.

This anger can lead to a loss of confidence and perceived legitimacy in the organization--here the FBI. That is going to affect things going forward--from how juries respond to them, to judges, to future Presidents and Congress regarding their findings and recommendations. It's also going to affect the public confidence in governmental institutions.

Most of what I'm pointing out is unquantifiable. But the vague nature of the report's findings as to what exactly happened and why it's wrong is going to be seized upon and used against the FBI and govt agencies for decades. It was by liberals pissed at how the FBI surveilled King, et al. and it's going to shift (has shifted, actually) now to conseratives. I don't think that's a good thing for the FBI or for our nation since they do serve an important role (although I think that role should be curtailed).

Those are all valid concerns, but I'm not going to indulge their little persecution complex in the moment. The report doesn't say what they want it to say. Durham, being the loyal little soldier he is, tries to make it say what they want, but even he can't pull it off.

 

[Spartans9312]

John McCain is who delivered the Steele report to the FBI, which may have been complete b.s. which supposedly is how the investigation started. I have real doubts about that now with the benefit of hindsight but that was the report given at the time.

“Our investigation determined that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele reporting. Nor was Steele able to produce corroboration for any of the reported allegations, even after being offered $1 million or more by the FBI for such corroboration”

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Durham, being the loyal little soldier he is,

Durham probably was the most straightforward SC in decades.

Why should anybody take you seriously?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What section of the report is this in?

Also, for the record, Trumps comments on hilaries email was CLEARLY. A joke and should never have been used as justification for investigating anything.

It was far less credible than you’re implying Russian intelligence is.

Starting on page 54:

As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to
closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however,
was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals
associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Significantly, the FBI opened a full
investigation before any preliminary discussions or interviews ,vere undertaken with either
the Australian diplomats or Papadopoulos. Further, the Opening EC does not describe any
collaboration or joint assessments of the information with either friendly foreign intelligence
services or other U.S. intelligence agencies. In effect, within three days of its receipt of the
Paragraph Five reporting, the FBI determined, 227 without further analysis, that the Australian information was an adequate basis for the opening of a full investigation into
whether individuals associated with an ongoing presidential campaign were "witting of
and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia." 228
In his interview with the Office, Executive Assistant Director for National Security
Michael Steinbach commented on the sufficiency of the information in the Opening EC,
stating that it was "poorly written."229 Steinbach added that the EC should not be read to
suggest that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign, but only those potential
subjects within the campaign whose activities justified inquiry. 230 Steinbach was also
questioned separately by the OIG on the amount of information that should normally be
included in an EC opening a counterintelligence case. He stated that it should be a logical
summary sufficient to justify the opening. Steinbach told the OI G, by way of an example,
"It's, hey look, I have Mike Steinbach on this date met with a Russian who we know is
associated with this intelligence organization. And, lay that out, and open a PI (preliminary
investigation). " 231
Although not referenced in the Opening EC, FBI officials have later pointed to the
importance of the Australian information when viewed in conjunction with Russia's likely
connections to the Wiki Leaks disclosures and its efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S.
elections. 232 In addition, Trump had also stated in a recently televised campaign speech,
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,"233

Sorry cutting and pasting from a PDF on my phone is in pain in the ass, but he goes on to stress that everyone agreed to opening the investigation but that they didn't contemplate starting smaller and jumped straight to a "full investigation." He's taking issue with the process, but he's not denying the need for an investigation.

 

[Lucy01]

You didn't miss much. The Durham report is just another wet fart. The guys in this thread making a huge deal about it sound a lot like the liberals who made a big deal about the Trump indictment.

You can’t trust a fart.

 

[Spartans9312]

You're badly misinformed.

Here’s a tip. Carefully re-read your link again. Then add a couple of words to your vocabulary by looking up the definitions of “purported” and “alleged.” Next, try to establish context for the excerpt you’ve cited by reading more of the Report. The “Clinton Plan” - - - the idea that Clinton’s campaign was working to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services” - - was a Russian allegation. It’s a claim that Durham, after four years, was unable to verify. You probably don’t know this but Clinton cooperated with the probe, meeting with Durham last May for a lengthy interview. The end result is that Durham was forced to concede that the evidence “did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense” on the part of Clinton or anyone in her campaign.

With respect to the FBI, I’m not defending them. They fvcked up in multiple ways in 2016 and early 2017. That’s not surprising considering who was at the helm. But Comey was an equal opportunity fvck-up. He hurt Clinton at least as badly as he did Trump. Frankly, the media coverage of Clinton’s emails in the days leading up to the 2016 election, thanks to Comey and his public letter to Congress on October 28, was exponentially more extensive than anything pertaining to Trump and Russia. Even Trump's Senior Counselor Kellyanne Conway subsequently acknowledged what many already knew - - that Comey “swung” the election, to use her word, in Trump’s favor.

The good news I suppose is that Durham, in his report, comments that he’s not proposing “any wholesale changes” in FBI or DOJ policies. “The answer is not the creation of new rules, but a renewed fidelity to the old,” he said. This should help- - - all senior executives overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation have since left the FBI as a result of termination, resignation or retirement. The current FBI Director, Trump appointee Chris Wray, has restored integrity to the Bureau.

So after four years of the Durham probe, there’s no “Crime of the Century,” as conman Trump predicted. No Pulitzers for coverage of the Durham investigation, as Trump also foretold. No smoking gun. Just an investigation that closed with a whimper after one guilty plea (and no jail time) for a sleazy FBI attorney who altered an email, and two failed criminal prosecutions ending in acquittals. But keep telling yourself that this investigation really blew the lid off the “deep state,” or that it’s proof we’ve become a banana republic or that it’s evidence of some other bullshit conspiracy theory to which you subscribe.

Clinesmith got 12 month’s probation. As you said, no jail time. I was happy to see the acquittals. Good on them. They didn’t cave to coercive plea bargains. A favorite of DOJ prosecutors. A win for our jury system

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Starting on page 54:

As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to
closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however,
was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals
associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Significantly, the FBI opened a full
investigation before any preliminary discussions or interviews ,vere undertaken with either
the Australian diplomats or Papadopoulos. Further, the Opening EC does not describe any
collaboration or joint assessments of the information with either friendly foreign intelligence
services or other U.S. intelligence agencies. In effect, within three days of its receipt of the
Paragraph Five reporting, the FBI determined, 227 without further analysis, that the Australian information was an adequate basis for the opening of a full investigation into
whether individuals associated with an ongoing presidential campaign were "witting of
and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia." 228
In his interview with the Office, Executive Assistant Director for National Security
Michael Steinbach commented on the sufficiency of the information in the Opening EC,
stating that it was "poorly written."229 Steinbach added that the EC should not be read to
suggest that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign, but only those potential
subjects within the campaign whose activities justified inquiry. 230 Steinbach was also
questioned separately by the OIG on the amount of information that should normally be
included in an EC opening a counterintelligence case. He stated that it should be a logical
summary sufficient to justify the opening. Steinbach told the OI G, by way of an example,
"It's, hey look, I have Mike Steinbach on this date met with a Russian who we know is
associated with this intelligence organization. And, lay that out, and open a PI (preliminary
investigation). " 231
Although not referenced in the Opening EC, FBI officials have later pointed to the
importance of the Australian information when viewed in conjunction with Russia's likely
connections to the Wiki Leaks disclosures and its efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S.
elections. 232 In addition, Trump had also stated in a recently televised campaign speech,
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,"233

Sorry cutting and pasting from a PDF on my phone is in pain in the ass, but he goes on to stress that everyone agreed to opening the investigation but that they didn't contemplate starting smaller and jumped straight to a "full investigation." He's taking issue with the process, but he's not denying the need for an investigation.

Thats not Durham saying an investigation was warranted, which is your claim. He only said that specific information warranted further examination.

You’re doing exactly what you criticize him for doing.

That section as a whole sure as heck doesn’t make them(the FBI) look any better, that’s for sure.

 

[Univee2]

I think you are underselling how significant this is going to be. Remember, that as a result of this investigation opening, the FBI, reporting to the Pres of one party, was actively surveilling an ongoing presidential campaign by the other major party. That's a big deal.

More generally, and by analogy, the reason the standard for judges is so high--appearance of impropriety--regarding their deciding issues is because a lot of their legitimacy stems from their ability to stay above the fray. That judges are now losing that appearance is causing a problem that we see with people claiming the courts are illegitimate.

I think most people want or expect the same standard of objectivity and lack of partisanship in law enforcement (including DOJ, which is an even trickier subject). When it doesn't happen, as it appears here, regardless of the specifics and fineries of language, partisans are going to feel angry--as we see in this thread (and as we saw when Comey investigated Clinton for the emails prior to his unusual public statement "exonerating" her). I think we have to accept as fact (and not dismiss it as "oh they're just being stupid") that partisans exist and that they might get angry at the appearance of impropriety when dealing with the machinery of law enforcement.

This anger can lead to a loss of confidence and perceived legitimacy in the organization--here the FBI. That is going to affect things going forward--from how juries respond to them, to judges, to future Presidents and Congress regarding their findings and recommendations. It's also going to affect the public confidence in governmental institutions.

Most of what I'm pointing out is unquantifiable. But the vague nature of the report's findings as to what exactly happened and why it's wrong is going to be seized upon and used against the FBI and govt agencies for decades. It was by liberals pissed at how the FBI surveilled King, et al. and it's going to shift (has shifted, actually) now to conseratives. I don't think that's a good thing for the FBI or for our nation since they do serve an important role (although I think that role should be curtailed).

This was really well put. The loss of respect for and confidence in the FBI and the DOJ will likely never be reversed. I’ll throw the IRS in there, as well.

When you question an agency such as this you can never be sure that the scales of justice will ever be balanced. And that’s an awful way to feel about government agencies with such immense power and influence over our lives.

Spartan is doing heroic work showing so many of the relevant points in the report. And, yet, it’s a nothingburger to those blinded by their manic hatred. Once the Lib ox is gored we’ll hear the screaming to high Heaven.

 

[GiggityGoo]

Next, try to establish context for the excerpt you’ve cited by reading more of the Report. The “Clinton Plan” - - - the idea that Clinton’s campaign was working to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services” - - was a Russian allegation.

The Clinton campaign commissioned the Steele Dossier. What is that if not a “plan to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services”

The Russian security services were just confirming what was already self evident had anyone given the dossier a second look.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Clinesmith got 12 month’s probation. As you said, no jail time. I was happy to see the acquittals. Good on them. They didn’t cave to coercive plea bargains. A favorite of DOJ prosecutors. A win for our jury system

Clinesmith should have had his license suspended if not disbarred. Lying to a FISA court where there is deliberately no due process is intolerable. But as we know, the rules are different when Trump is the target.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'm not defending the FBI. It's poor practice on their part to be sure. But it's not remotely what the Trumpers wanted it to be, or are portraying it as in this thread.

This was really well put. The loss of respect for and confidence in the FBI and the DOJ will likely never be reversed. I’ll throw the IRS in there, as well.

When you question an agency such as this you can never be sure that the scales of justice will ever be balanced. And that’s an awful way to feel about government agencies with such immense power and influence over our lives.

Spartan is doing heroic work showing so many of the relevant points in the report. And, yet, it’s a nothingburger to those blinded by their manic hatred. Once the Lib ox is gored we’ll hear the screaming to high Heaven.

Let’s see. Who am I leaving out? Dot, Faa (Boeing), cdc, nih, fbi, irs

 

[Spartans9312]

Again, a claim made by Russian intelligence versus a claim made by Australian intelligence. I can't believe they weren't handled exactly the same way!

1. Some FBI agents were able to open a totally unfounded counterintelligence investigation against a presidential candidate and his campaign (obviously there were lawyers involved)
Or
2. Senior FBI leadership was ok with this scenario. Even though they didn’t take same approach with opposing party candidate

3. There is definitely evidence of bias. The treatment was obviously different.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think you are underselling how significant this is going to be. Remember, that as a result of this investigation opening, the FBI, reporting to the Pres of one party, was actively surveilling an ongoing presidential campaign by the other major party. That's a big deal.

More generally, and by analogy, the reason the standard for judges is so high--appearance of impropriety--regarding their deciding issues is because a lot of their legitimacy stems from their ability to stay above the fray. That judges are now losing that appearance is causing a problem that we see with people claiming the courts are illegitimate.

I think most people want or expect the same standard of objectivity and lack of partisanship in law enforcement (including DOJ, which is an even trickier subject). When it doesn't happen, as it appears here, regardless of the specifics and fineries of language, partisans are going to feel angry--as we see in this thread (and as we saw when Comey investigated Clinton for the emails prior to his unusual public statement "exonerating" her). I think we have to accept as fact (and not dismiss it as "oh they're just being stupid") that partisans exist and that they might get angry at the appearance of impropriety when dealing with the machinery of law enforcement.

This anger can lead to a loss of confidence and perceived legitimacy in the organization--here the FBI. That is going to affect things going forward--from how juries respond to them, to judges, to future Presidents and Congress regarding their findings and recommendations. It's also going to affect the public confidence in governmental institutions.

Most of what I'm pointing out is unquantifiable. But the vague nature of the report's findings as to what exactly happened and why it's wrong is going to be seized upon and used against the FBI and govt agencies for decades. It was by liberals pissed at how the FBI surveilled King, et al. and it's going to shift (has shifted, actually) now to conseratives. I don't think that's a good thing for the FBI or for our nation since they do serve an important role (although I think that role should be curtailed).

Agree. Based on the parts I read, I think Durham was quite restrained, probably in an effort to not be argumentative. Contrast this with Mueller’s report which was quite argumentative. Trump critics have pounced on this to argue that Durham didn’t find much. Not true.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

1. Some FBI agents were able to open a totally unfounded counterintelligence investigation against a presidential candidate and his campaign (obviously there were lawyers involved)
Or
2. Senior FBI leadership was ok with this scenario. Even though they didn’t take same approach with opposing party candidate

3. There is definitely evidence of bias. The treatment was obviously different.

The situations were not identical. You keep insisting on ignoring that important point.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This was really well put. The loss of respect for and confidence in the FBI and the DOJ will likely never be reversed. I’ll throw the IRS in there, as well.

When you question an agency such as this you can never be sure that the scales of justice will ever be balanced. And that’s an awful way to feel about government agencies with such immense power and influence over our lives.

Spartan is doing heroic work showing so many of the relevant points in the report. And, yet, it’s a nothingburger to those blinded by their manic hatred. Once the Lib ox is gored we’ll hear the screaming to high Heaven.

It’s also why people aren’t thrilled at the prospect of exploding the size of the irs

 

[Indianaftw]

The real reason Gym Jordan and his cohorts hated the Mueller investigation: A total of thirty-four individuals and three companies were indicted by Mueller's investigators. Eight have pleaded guilty to or been convicted of felonies, including five Trump associates and campaign officials. Compare that to Durham's failure which resulted in one guilty plea by an attorney who altered a legal affidavit and two cases which resulted in acquittals. This report is nothing but an attempt by Durham to placate his Republican masters. The Russian involvement of Trump campaign officials and Trump associates is well documented in the Mueller report. I doubt that any one on this forum had read it like I have.

Everyone knew the Mueller report was another left wing piece of trash. Anyone not realizing that has Dolt tattooed on their forehead. Thanks

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Thats not Durham saying an investigation was warranted, which is your claim. He only said that specific information warranted further examination.

You’re doing exactly what you criticize him for doing.

That section as a whole sure as heck doesn’t make them(the FBI) look any better, that’s for sure.

I was using "investigation" as a synonym for "further examination." Regardless, the point is, even Durham recognizes the FBI had to look into this info. He takes issue with how they did it.

 

[Univee2]

It’s also why people aren’t thrilled at the prospect of exploding the size of the irs

You damn well got that right. The ghost of Lois Lerner gives people the shivers.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Agree. Based on the parts I read, I think Durham was quite restrained, probably in an effort to not be argumentative. Contrast this with Mueller’s report which was quite argumentative. Trump critics have pounced on this to argue that Durham didn’t find much. Not true.

Oh FFS. Argumentative? Neither report is argumentative. They are both written in the same dry style. What Durham does do that Mueller didn't is make use of loaded language to try to score political points throughout the report, even though the report itself lands empty. Trump supporters are suckered in by this loaded language to argue that Durham found a lot. Not true.

 

[Spartans9312]

Clinesmith should have had his license suspended if not disbarred. Lying to a FISA court where there is deliberately no due process is intolerable. But as we know, the rules are different when Trump is the target.

I don’t know the procedure for being disbarred.
I don’t understand Durham’s reform proposals as bowl discussed.

“to provide additional scrutiny of politically sensitive investigations would be to identify, in advance, an official who is responsible for challenging the steps taken in the investigation. Stewart Baker proposes having a ‘career position for a nonpartisan FBI agent or lawyer to challenge the FISA application pandemic every other stage of the investigation’ “