John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

[childeye 2]

A report by Special Counsel John Durham released Monday found the FBI should not have launched a full investigation into the connections between former President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, with the report saying the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence” to justify the investigation.​

​

View attachment 331408​

The above attachment is saying that before the FBI received information about Papadopoulos from Australia, the FBI did not have any intelligence suggesting the Trump campaign was collaborating with the Russian government.

In other words, when the FBI did get information from Australia about Papadopoulos, they then had cause to investigate it, which is what they did.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The above attachment is saying that before the FBI received information about Papadopoulos from Australia, the FBI did not have any intelligence suggesting the Trump campaign was collaborating with the Russian government.

In other words, when the FBI did get information from Australia about Papadopoulos, they then had cause to investigate it, which is what they did.

It also very plainly states

FBI used “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence” to justify the investigation.

 

[Say it aint so]

It also very plainly states

FBI used “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence” to justify the investigation.

'Durham’s report suggests he thinks the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation, rather than a full investigation, based on the Australian’s tip.'​

​

What does one do when the Australian tip, that raw data, turns out to be true?
What does one do when one sees Russia literally trying to help a candidate win?
What doe one do when said candidate asks for Russia's help, and they literally oblige the next day?

 

[childeye 2]

It also very plainly states

FBI used “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence” to justify the investigation.

Well, it's plainly stating the obvious. Yes of course a tip from a known diplomat would be raw intelligence, and therefore needed to be analyzed and corroborated, since it was the first time the FBI were informed of where there was an attempt to disseminate hacked information from the DNC. Clearly, the FBI would need to investigate it further so as to corroborate it.

The FBI was already aware of cozy bear working to hack unclassified servers in the Whitehouse and state department and joint chiefs of staff back in 2014, and they knew of the DNC server infiltration in August of 2015.

The FBI would have been derelict in their duty to not investigate a tip from an Australian diplomat so as to corroborate whether or not it was Russia (cozy bear) that hacked the DNC, and so it's ridiculous to imply that the investigation was not warranted because it was successful in corroborating that Russia was in fact interfering to help Trump get elected.

 

[Always in His Presence]

'Durham’s report suggests he thinks the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation, rather than a full investigation, based on the Australian’s tip.'​

​

They did not follow protocol and went into a full investigation based on unverified information - without even speaking to the sources that the information came from.

What does one do when the Australian tip, that raw data, turns out to be true?

You mean the conversation someone heard in a pub that was never authenticated nor verified?

What does one do when one sees Russia literally trying to help a candidate win?

When it happens - let us know

What doe one do when said candidate asks for Russia's help, and they literally oblige the next day?

When it happens - let us know.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The above attachment is saying that before the FBI received information about Papadopoulos from Australia, the FBI did not have any intelligence suggesting the Trump campaign was collaborating with the Russian government.

In other words, when the FBI did get information from Australia about Papadopoulos, they then had cause to investigate it, which is what they did.

Hearsay from a person in a pub that is unverified and they never spoke to the person who supposedly heard it in the pub.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hearsay from a person in a pub that is unverified and they never spoke to the person who supposedly heard it in the pub.

Good grief! We're talking about the predicate for an investigation, not trial evidence used to convict. And it's a counterintelligence investigation to boot.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Good grief! We're talking about the predicate for an investigation, not trial evidence used to convict. And it's a counterintelligence investigation to boot.

We are talking about the premiere law enforcement agency in the US opening a multi year full scale investigation into a presidential candidate based on a hearsay conversation overheard in a pub in Australia. Upon hearing it, they spoke with no one who was there - they looked at no evidence - and based on nothing they opened an investigation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We are talking about the premiere law enforcement agency in the US opening a multi year full scale investigation into a presidential candidate based on a hearsay conversation overheard in a pub in Australia. Upon hearing it, they spoke with no one who was there - they looked at no evidence - and based on nothing they opened an investigation.

Actually it's *2* conversations with *2* witnesses from the Australian diplomatic corps.

As noted by others above, the FBI already knew about the DNC hack and the CH investigation was opened until after the dump of that info by Russian intelligence.

Durham himself states there should have been a "preliminary investigation" of this incident (not a "full investigation"), but that preliminary investigation would have certainly included Mr. Coffeeboy's emails which contained corraboration of the basic ideas behind the Australian tip. (That would have triggered a full investigation of him anyway.)

The Durham investigation seems as nothing other than an attempt by Mr. Barr to cloud the waters and eventually convince the poorly informed that it was egregious, anti-Trump behavior on the part of the "corrupt FBI" to take down poor Donnie.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Durham himself states there should have been a "preliminary investigation" of this incident (not a "full investigation")

Repeating this doesn’t bring further proof than the fact they acted with no preliminary investigation, no questioning of the ‘witness’ in the pub and no evidence.

 

[Say it aint so]

They did not follow protocol and went into a full investigation based on unverified information - without even speaking to the sources that the information came from.

You mean the conversation someone heard in a pub that was never authenticated nor verified?

When it happens - let us know

When it happens - let us know.

Preliminary investigation, proof claims found true, full investigation, Trump officials lying to FBI, Trump fires Comey, Trump wins Special counsel.

Papadopoulos charges and admittance to the charges. That's verification. Just wasn't conversation at a pub.

 

[Always in His Presence]

take down poor Donnie.

This takes away any semblance of a balanced view. If I spoke of the current President and his many investigations and referred to him as Joey, would being degrading towards him help my debate or hurt it?

 

[Always in His Presence]

Preliminary investigation, proof claims found true,

There was no Preliminary investigation look at the previous posts

 

[childeye 2]

Hearsay from a person in a pub that is unverified and they never spoke to the person who supposedly heard it in the pub.

Well, that's not even true. As a matter of circumstance, sure, the FBI generally relies on tips that they then investigate when perceived as credible. In a counter-intelligence operation, I assume you wouldn't want the subject (Russia) to know what you know; how much you're on to them. So, I don't even think they would just openly begin by immediately questioning everyone about their ties to Russia.

What you call unverified hearsay, which incidentally turned out to be true, came from Papadopoulos while talking about working for the Trump campaign. And the hearsay from what Papadopoulos said he had heard, was that Russia had political dirt on Hillary. That would be of interest to the FBI since they knew the DNC was hacked. The Australian diplomats who heard it from Papadopoulos two separate times, initially sat on it and didn't say anything. But when hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign began leaking out to the public in July of 2016 coinciding with the National convention, the diplomats felt it was their duty to report the encounter to American Intelligence services. So, you can be sure the American intelligence would have listened to them about those concerns considering the gravity of the situation at the time.

 

[Say it aint so]

Durham who is zero for every attempt to find someone culpable to justify his investigation, doesn't have the best judgement.
Maybe, and once again, it was those gatherings with Bill Barr as they drank scotch even though a special counsel is supposed to work outside connections of the appointing AG. He is just another who lost his reputation coming in proximity with Trump, and now he feeblily tries to claw back that rep in amongst his collegues within the justice system. Come Trump it's make attorneys get attorneys, and/or your reputation is soiled.

 

[Say it aint so]

There was no Preliminary investigation look at the previous posts

Of course, all those with time served, jailed, sentenced, indicted, when it comes to contacts with Russians or Russian cutouts, there is no way a premise for that investigation (sic). 7 guilty pleas and over 30 indictments on a investigation Durham thinks had no basis.

I mean this is nuts. If it weren't for the investigation Trump would have had a multitude of people advising him with interest in Russian affairs, even though Trump never tried to hide that himself....oh wait, yes he did, he constantly lied about not having business interests in Russia as his lawyer was busy trying to hammer out a deal. Manafort who was indeed compromised, would have been part of his enclave. What about the Trump inner circle willing to accept from Russia to interfere in the election? What about the back channel Jarred Kushner wanted to set up with Russia, inside Russia's embassy?

There is one investigation that never should have been started, and it's the Durham investigation which amounted to one failure of a nothing burger resulting in a CYA summation given his failure.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Well, that's not even true.

Absolutely true and noted in the Durham report.

Read the first sentence:

Straight from the report - note the "unevaluated intelligence information" being the reason why Cross Fire Hurricane was SWIFTLY opened.

 

[childeye 2]

Absolutely true and noted in the Durham report.

Read the first sentence:

View attachment 331500

Straight from the report - note the "unevaluated intelligence information" being the reason why Cross Fire Hurricane was SWIFTLY opened.

It's just stating the obvious. The Australian government informed the FBI about Papadopoulos which of course had yet to be evaluated by the FBI. But it had been evaluated by the Australian government as worthy of notifying the FBI. There was no reason to question the diplomat's integrity, and the Australians surely would have had some diplomatic concerns. The rest is basically just insinuating that the investigation was started because they didn't like Trump.


Here is some useful intelligence during the time:

The FBI was interested in any reports about the dissemination of the hacked DNC emails.
They knew emails were being leaked hurting Hillary.
They knew of cozy bear.
They knew about Manafort ties to Russia and Ukraine.
They knew Trump had asked Russia to find Hillary's missing emails.
They knew Putin had said that Trump had pledged to restore relations with Russia.
They knew Trump had publicly stated he was for removing sanctions from Russia.
They knew the election was less than 4 months away.
They knew red flags were popping up and they didn't know enough about what was happening.


The FBI would have been derelict if they did not open an official investigation upon hearing about Papadopoulos, given the circumstances. They made the necessary decision that the circumstances required to the best of their judgment, and it turned out to be the right move.

 

[Always in His Presence]

We disagree

It's just stating the obvious. The Australian government informed the FBI about Papadopoulos which of course had yet to be evaluated by the FBI. But it had been evaluated by the Australian government as worthy of notifying the FBI. There was no reason to question the diplomat's integrity, and the Australians surely would have had some diplomatic concerns. The rest is basically just insinuating that the investigation was started because they didn't like Trump.


Here is some useful intelligence during the time:

The FBI was interested in any reports about the dissemination of the hacked DNC emails.
They knew emails were being leaked hurting Hillary.
They knew of cozy bear.
They knew about Manafort.
They knew Putin had said that Trump had pledged to restore relations with Russia.
They knew Trump had publicly stated he was for removing sanctions from Russia.
They knew the election was less than 4 months away.
They knew red flags were popping up and they didn't know enough about what was happening.


The FBI would have been derelict if they did not open an official investigation upon hearing about Papadopoulos. They made the necessary decision that the circumstances required to the best of their judgment, and it turned out to be the right move.

We disagree. I tend to agree with Durham’s report

 

[childeye 2]

We disagree

We disagree. I tend to agree with Durham’s report

Well, any perceived disagreement on your part over a report that I'm saying states the obvious, would not even qualify as a disagreement on my part. The facts already speak for themselves. The Durham report does not disprove at all, that Russia was trying to help Trump win and the Trump campaign knew it and welcomed it.