John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

[Always in His Presence]

Well, any perceived disagreement on your part over a futile report that states the obvious would not even qualify as a disagreement on my part. The facts already speak for themselves; Russia was trying to help Trump win and the Trump campaign knew it and welcomed it.

Thank you for your opinion - we disagree on this also.

 

[rambot]

Durham says you didn't need an inquiry that led to the following outcomes:
All of the Mueller report’s major findings in less than 30 minutes

34 individuals were indicted.


But I suppose that, surprise, surprise, white collar crime is of 0 concern for Republicans.

Seriously...who could be surpised by that.

 

[childeye 2]

Thank you for your opinion - we disagree on this also.

You're misunderstanding me, I didn't give an opinion, I conveyed that the parts of the Durham report you had cited only stated the obvious and that the report didn't disprove that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump. Nor does it dispute the Don junior emails which Donald Trump junior himself provided, along with his own testimony about the Trump campaign meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians on June 9, 2016. Those are well documented facts about events that happened before crossfire hurricane ever began. I'm simply stating a history of the events.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

And somehow the internal FBI distinction between "preliminary" and "full" investigation somehow is soooo critical. It doesn't affect what was found or what was done. If the grand conclusion and "blockbuster" result of the Durham's probe in to the opening of CH was that the first couple weeks of it should have been a somewhat less intense investigation, including interviewing the Australian witnesses, until the nature of things was clear an a full investigation was warranted, then that part of the result is in the words of a certain Mr. Gorka, "a nothingburger".

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

A balanced view of the Durham investigation? Of course not. The whole thing was a politically motivated hatchet job to "investigate the investigators" and muddy the waters about the true culpability of Trump and his allies regarding the intersection of the Trump campaign and the Russian state. It was an utter failure as an investigation (though as a driver of mud and gaslighting it's working quite well) with nothing of consequence to show. A couple Clinton campaign officials fell for a hoax connection (the Alfa Bank server thing) and took it to the FBI; the British private intelligence reports on Trump were contaminated by RU Intel false claims (as many publicly suspected from the moment it was published in Jan 2017); and a few misc. things. Interesting, but not really much to show for such an exhaustive investigation.

As for one Donald John Trump of Queens County, New York...

He was not president when CH was open, nor is he president now.

"The Donald" (as he was once known) is the biggest complainer I've ever seen from someone with so much wealth, power and privilege. He complains incessantly about how the FBI/NYAG/NYCDA/FCDA are investigating his crimes. He and his political allies and his fans and his media backers and his lawyers all are prone to complaints about "persecution". He acts like a giant man-baby, and when the context fits I will occasionally refer to him that way. (Far from being "persecuted" he is, in fact, a bully and has been for a very long time.)

So when Joe Biden starts acting like a man-baby and complains about everyone out to get him, then sure, take a poke with an infantile nickname.

 

[childeye 2]

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.

In clear hindsight, the above is a dubious distinction since the FBI along with other intelligence agencies were already deep into a federal investigation involving the hacking of the DNC server, and whether Russian intelligence services were behind the hack, and the disseminating of stolen information.

In this scenario, American counterintelligence should begin to understand that they are engaging in the activities of a foreign adversary working to sabotage fair elections in favor of the Republican candidate. The Durham report would present as a cognitive articulation if this scenario above had not been omitted in regard to whether a reported event in May, of a possible Russian proxy trying to compromise a Trump campaign, warranted a "full" investigation. Instead, it just asserts that since the FBI didn't know at the time; that the Trump campaign had already met with Russians at Trump Tower and were already compromised in June, they therefore should have only opened a "preliminary" investigation when they received the tip from Australian diplomats in July.

 

[DaisyDay]

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?

That's not the nickname used for him. There are also many, many snide remarks concerning "basements" and senility.

I do understand the concern about the latter as I had the same, genuine concern about the former guy and his obvious decline as documented from interviews from the 80s where he was quite articulate compared to recent interviews where he rambled repetitiously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just a preliminary investigation. And since many indictments and convictions eventually resulted, it's hard for me to believe that a preliminary investigation would not have proceeded at some point to a full one, leading to substantially identical results.

Most of those indictments and convictions were related to not cooperating with a sham investigation.

Obstruction of justice is a serious crime....when there's an actual pursuit of justice. This was a political hit job...a sham...a conspiracy theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In clear hindsight, the above is a dubious distinction since the FBI along with other intelligence agencies were already deep into a federal investigation involving the hacking of the DNC server, and whether Russian intelligence services were behind the hack, and the disseminating of stolen information.

In this scenario, American counterintelligence should begin to understand that they are engaging in the activities of a foreign adversary working to sabotage fair elections in favor of the Republican candidate. The Durham report would present as a cognitive articulation if this scenario above had not been omitted in regard to whether a reported event in May, of a possible Russian proxy trying to compromise a Trump campaign, warranted a "full" investigation. Instead, it just asserts that since the FBI didn't know at the time; that the Trump campaign had already met with Russians at Trump Tower and were already compromised in June, they therefore should have only opened a "preliminary" investigation when they received the tip from Australian diplomats in July.

The stolen information about the rigging of the Democratic Party nomination was factual. It's not as if the Russians spread disinformation. They spread facts lol.

 

[childeye 2]

The stolen information about the rigging of the Democratic Party nomination was factual. It's not as if the Russians spread disinformation. They spread facts lol.

I agree that things were learned about the workings of favoritism in the DNC amongst other things. I don't know how much that helped Trump win, but I'd think it would help. However, as I recall the Mueller report section on the Russian disinformation campaign was about other activities separate from the WikiLeaks dumps.

But I'm getting off topic, since the topic here on this thread is the Durham report. So I'll just add that when I say the dissemination of stolen information, I'm thinking about the connection between Russia, WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign, Roger Stone and so forth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Actually, the Durham report states pretty conclusively that at no time did the FBI corroborate any allegations against the Trump campaign that anyone had made and therefore were never in a position where it would be reasonable to even begin an investigation.

When I say "corroborate" what I mean is try to verify....with any sort of evidence....any allegations against the Trump campaign. They even offered Steele 1 million $ if he could corroborate anything in his "report" (paid for by Hillary Clinton) and he couldn't.

The investigation should never have happened. That's what a corrupt government does....that's what a corrupt party does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree that things were learned about the workings of favoritism in the DNC amongst other things. I don't know how much that helped Trump win, but I'd think it would help. However, as I recall the Mueller report section on the Russian disinformation campaign was about other activities separate from the WikiLeaks dumps.

Unfortunately....the impact of internet memes on voter outcomes is something we've never really bothered talking about or investigating. We're some lies being spread? Yes. Were some people repeating those lies? Sure.

That wouldn't justify one party using the DOJ and FBI and CIA against the presidential campaign of another party....not for a day.....certainly not for 4 years.

But I'm getting off topic, since the topic here on this thread is the Durham report. So I'll just add that when I say the dissemination of stolen information, I'm thinking about the connection between Russia, WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign, Roger Stone and so forth.

Well imagine that you're an unbiased voter who wants to pick a candidate that best represents your interests.....no matter what party or platform that candidate comes from....

Imagine that one day....you learn that one party has literally rigged their nomination process and while many in their party imagined they had a choice....they never really did, not for one second, it was always going to be Hillary who got the nomination.

Is that good information for you to know? Or is that something you'd rather be ignorant of?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

You're equating "releasing facts about a corrupt political party" with "interference".

Releasing facts about a corrupt political party is what your nightly news is supposed to do.

Now they do election interference.

 

[DaisyDay]

Unfortunately....the impact of internet memes on voter outcomes is something we've never really bothered talking about or investigating. We're some lies being spread? Yes. Were some people repeating those lies? Sure.

That wouldn't justify one party using the DOJ and FBI and CIA against the presidential campaign of another party....not for a day.....certainly not for 4 years.

True enough. Crossfire Hurricane began in the last day of July 2016 under the Obama administration. It was kept secret from the public until after the election. Meanwhile, two weeks before that election, the head of the FBI, keeping properly mum about that investigation, announces that the FBI is reopening the investigation into Clinton's emails - totally against protocol and department rules. Only two DAYS before the election, he announces that she is cleared. The damage was done.

Six months into the investigation and it is under Donald's administration. He does his darndest to get it shut down, even firing the head of the FBI, then eventually also his Attorney General for recusing himself for being under investigation potentially.

The next four years are under Donald's administration, with the first two years having the House and Senate under his party's control. If the Mueller investigation was under a corrupt administration, well...

Well imagine that you're an unbiased voter who wants to pick a candidate that best represents your interests.....no matter what party or platform that candidate comes from....

Imagine that one day....you learn that one party has literally rigged their nomination process and while many in their party imagined they had a choice....they never really did, not for one second, it was always going to be Hillary who got the nomination.

Is that good information for you to know? Or is that something you'd rather be ignorant of?

Political parties are allowed under law to make their own rules and run their primaries as they see fit. I would have thought that the Superdelegates might tip off that poor unbiased voter that someone's thumb was on the scale.

That doesn't excuse the theft of the emails nor the coordination via Roger Stone (pardoned) with Wikileaks on their release. Or are you one of those ends justifies means laddies? These were not released during the primary, but during the general election. It was not an altruistic act of information but to turn as many Bernie Bros against Clinton and towards her opponent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A balanced view of the Durham investigation? Of course not.

You believe Durham is somehow compromised?

I'm guessing you haven't watched any recorded footage.

The whole thing was a politically motivated hatchet job to "investigate the investigators" and muddy the waters about the true culpability of Trump and his allies regarding the intersection of the Trump campaign and the Russian state.

Still believing those conspiracy theories huh?

It was an utter failure as an investigation (though as a driver of mud and gaslighting it's working quite well) with nothing of consequence to show. A couple Clinton campaign officials fell for a hoax connection (the Alfa Bank server thing) and took it to the FBI; the British private intelligence reports on Trump were contaminated by RU Intel false claims (as many publicly suspected from the moment it was published in Jan 2017); and a few misc. things. Interesting, but not really much to show for such an exhaustive investigation.

Almost as if the investigation should not have happened.

As for one Donald John Trump of Queens County, New York...

He was not president when CH was open, nor is he president now.

Which is a great point.

"The Donald" (as he was once known) is the biggest complainer I've ever seen from someone with so much wealth, power and privilege. He complains incessantly about how the FBI/NYAG/NYCDA/FCDA are investigating his crimes. He and his political allies and his fans and his media backers and his lawyers all are prone to complaints about "persecution". He acts like a giant man-baby, and when the context fits I will occasionally refer to him that way. (Far from being "persecuted" he is, in fact, a bully and has been for a very long time.)

MLK Jr wasn't as heavily investigated. You have people still complaining about what the FBI did to him.

Here's the thing...as much as Trump is a scumbag and huckster...you can't hold him to some unreasonable standard because he's a political outsider. You can't use the federal government like a personal goon squad and attack the personal lives of anyone who opposes your party....that's not a democracy. There hasn't been a president in my memory who hasn't spoken to foreign officials or taken donations or otherwise "worked with" foreign actors in some capacity in my lifetime. The current president's son clearly took a job with a Ukrainian oligarch and took money for papa Biden, so if we're comparing who got more from their "collusion"....

Ukraine got billions in US aid, military equipment, intel, and apparently even military personnel for their hand in helping the Bidens.

What did Russia get out of helping Trump?

So when Joe Biden starts acting like a man-baby and complains about everyone out to get him, then sure, take a poke with an infantile nickname.

When would that happen? He's treated with kid gloves by both the media and every federal agency that knows he's a stuffed shirt.

"Classified documents that turned up in your office sometime a few months ago after having them from way back in the Obama years?"

"No worries...have your lawyer send them over after he's gone through them."

You won't hear any complaints from Biden because they aren't going to actually investigate him. It's not like they have uncorraborated evidence....it's been corroborated, by Biden.

 

[childeye 2]

You're equating "releasing facts about a corrupt political party" with "interference".

No, I'm not. But I can guess that you're trying to equate covert Russian intelligence operations with the free press.

Releasing facts about a corrupt political party is what your nightly news is supposed to do.

Okay?

Now they do election interference.

No.

 

[childeye 2]

Actually, the Durham report states pretty conclusively that at no time did the FBI corroborate any allegations against the Trump campaign that anyone had made and therefore were never in a position where it would be reasonable to even begin an investigation.

I don't see how you can logically come to that conclusion. The investigation was meant to see if they could corroborate information received from the Australian diplomats relating to the Russian interference that was currently underway at the time. Obviously, you'd need to open an investigation to do that.

From the report: The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign were witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia".

When I say "corroborate" what I mean is try to verify....with any sort of evidence....any allegations against the Trump campaign. They even offered Steele 1 million $ if he could corroborate anything in his "report" (paid for by Hillary Clinton) and he couldn't.

The investigation should never have happened. That's what a corrupt government does....that's what a corrupt party does.

Apart from your opinion, the fact remains that the report cites the FBI saying that the crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened because of the Australian's cable, not the Steele dossier, and the FBI had a duty and obligation to investigate whether Russian intelligence was attempting to compromise or had compromised any individuals in the Trump campaign. To that end the investigation was focused on four people, Michael Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Carter Page.

From the report: 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.

 

[childeye 2]

Unfortunately....the impact of internet memes on voter outcomes is something we've never really bothered talking about or investigating. We're some lies being spread? Yes. Were some people repeating those lies? Sure.

That wouldn't justify one party using the DOJ and FBI and CIA against the presidential campaign of another party....not for a day.....certainly not for 4 years.

Okay, so you think crossfire hurricane was about an attack on the Trump campaign by the Democratic party. The Durham report came up empty about that.

Well imagine that you're an unbiased voter who wants to pick a candidate that best represents your interests.....no matter what party or platform that candidate comes from....

Imagine that one day....you learn that one party has literally rigged their nomination process and while many in their party imagined they had a choice....they never really did, not for one second, it was always going to be Hillary who got the nomination.

Is that good information for you to know? Or is that something you'd rather be ignorant of?

Personally, I think Bernie got a raw deal and I'm glad it came out. That doesn't mean I'm glad the Russians interfered in the election to get who they wanted.

 

[NxNW]

The stolen information about the rigging of the Democratic Party nomination was factual. It's not as if the Russians spread disinformation. They spread facts lol.

In collusion with the Trump campaign.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm not. But I can guess that you're trying to equate covert Russian intelligence operations with the free press.

Well here's the problem as I see it....

Much gaslighting has been made of Russian disinformation and there's little evidence it influenced outcomes at all.

I can't say it hasn't influenced elections....but I can say our media certainly has. Our own media has repeatedly lied and spread theories and rumors as unvarnished truths....and they don't get called out for disinformation.

Not by those concerned about Russian disinformation anyway.

Okay?

Yeah....that's actually what freedom of the press is for. It's supposed to be a check against the lies spewed by our political parties. It's not supposed to work for them.

No.

Yeah....remember that story they all squashed about a certain laptop?

They knew they were lying. The very same "former intelligence officials" signing the letter were regular published contributors to those mainstream outlets. Do you want to read what they thought of Trump? It's not exactly unbiased.