John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

[NxNW]

I understand that Hillary screwed up big time, thought she was above the law and could set up private servers.

Colin Powell suggested it, because the government server was an insecure piece of junk. The one she provided was an upgrade, and was never hacked.

She got hacked

No she didn't.

she got exposed for a lot of corrupt behavior and nomination rigging.

No she didn't.

That doesn't justify blaming it all on your political opponent and handing disinformation to the FBI to weaponize them.

Never happened.

 

[Say it aint so]

Right...John Durham. The guy who successfully won judgements against dirty FBI agents who framed innocent men who died in prison. The guy who brought down corrupt FBI agents who were working for Whitey Bulger. The guy who investigated the CIA torture accusations and the final report of this is still too classified for public knowledge. The guy tapped by both Democrats and Republicans alike whenever a federal agency is screwing up and trying to cover it up....and they need to figure out the truth....you get John Durham.

You'd think a guy like him would rise higher than a state attorney....but I suspect the proposition of appointing him head of the DOJ is too scary for the average politician because he's not corrupt....and doggedly single minded towards justice.

That's the guy you don't trust. If Jesus came back as a fat gay black woman, was appointed special counsel, and delivered the exact same report....would you trust it then?

If you paid attention, there's no rush on either side to slander Durham or suggest he failed or was biased. We don't have a lot of guys like him.

That's the odd thing. People with what can be concieved as stellar reputations become tarnished once associated with Trump or those within Trump's circle. And Bill Barr was in Trump's circle. Durham is now trying to salvage a tarnished reputation within the halls of justice. In the past he was an effective prosecutor. This adventure where he went zero for his indictments, where he bent norms causing attorneys working for him to quit. Yet his beef with the FBI is not that they had no justification for Crossfire, but the FBI didn't invoke a preliminary process first..aka norms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Colin Powell suggested it, because the government server was an insecure piece of junk.

Which may be true.

The one she provided was an upgrade, and was never hacked.

I think the final verdict was her servers were unable to prove any instrusion or not.

Keep in mind though, I'm not distinguishing between HRC and her campaign.

No she didn't.

Yeah she did....it's been pretty well documented. There's an entire book on the topic by the DNC member who took over in the interim after Wasserman-Shultz. She made it pretty clear that Hillary basically constructed a deal that ensured the DNC staff got paid as long as she didn't contribute to the common fund. The DNC literally had no funds for Bernie Sanders' campaign had he won the nomination....

Which is exactly why he was never going to win the nomination.

HRC controlled the purse strings unfairly.

Never happened.

Well the Durham report shows her campaign saying they didn't really believe the evidence they turned over to the FBI was valid. Clearly though....you aren't interested in evidence.

 

[childeye 2]

Again....WikiLeaks acts as a news reporring website. After March 16th, they would be contacting everyone possible to vet the info they were handed. As Assange himself once remarked...."we are the only outlet that has a record of 100% facts".....and yes, I'm paraphrasing there.

I agree that they act as a news reporting website that leaks information otherwise kept secret from the public, hence the name WikiLeaks. They can even claim they report 100% facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not propaganda. For example, if Russia intended to hurt Hillary, Russia would simply select only what is negative and omit the positives to release through WikiLeaks to create a false impression.

But that is not even a point I'm arguing as it's irrelevant to the issue of whether the Trump campaign is aware of Russia interfering to hurt Hillary and whether they are complicit. To that end, I want to state a fact that can be safely reasoned upon. That is why I stated that it wasn't until June 14, 2016, that crowd strike published its forensic examination of the DNC server, so that I can contrast that with Mifsud's claim to Papadopoulos that he knew in April that Russia had emails belonging to Clinton and that they were going to release them anonymously to hurt Hillary.

Probably from Assange or the Hillary campaign....because WikiLeaks had the emails since March.

There is no reason to speculate. The official reports all say the same thing. According to Papadopoulos he heard it from Misfud. The reasoning would end in a contradiction to think it was Hillary. It would suggest that Hillary hacked the DNC to hurt her own campaign.

Actually the FBI could have given him what is known as a "defensive briefing" warning him that he might be approached by Russian agents working to disrupt the election. This is something they regularly do in these situations in the past....for both Democrats and Republicans....and they continued to do for Hillary's campaign in the 2016 election
Of course, for some odd reason, they didn't do that for Trump's campaign. The enthusiasm for finding dirt on Trump as quoted by FBI agents was likely do to their own political bias. This is never a good thing in an agency that is supposed to uphold the ideals of justice at the federal level....and that kind of blatant bias is probably why they ended up dropping important cases to go sit outside of school board meetings when this administration decided to push a very grossly ideological curriculum in public schools.

The classified security briefing was given to candidate Trump in August 2016. Aides like Papadopoulos are not allowed unless they first obtain security clearance.

The Durham report conveys that the FBI weighed warning Papadopoulos about Russian tactics, but the experts in counter espionage felt doing that would cause Russia to change tactics and make it more difficult to track what they were doing.

What in the world are you talking about?

Anyone who knew of this? You mean like Hillary Clinton?

Or are you trying to say that trying to tie Trump's campaign to it despite having garbage evidence was a mistake?

I qualified my meaning as anyone in the Trump campaign who knew of the crime happening (Russian interference in the election) before it was announced that Russia was behind the stealing of documents from the DNC, and I was referencing Papadopoulos.

I am not implying anyone was trying to tie the Trump campaign to the crime. It certainly was not a mistake to investigate whether the Trump campaign were aware or unaware of the predicament caused by Russia interfering on their behalf and whether they were coordinating with Russia.

The Australian report not only was documented but verified by the crime of interference (hacking and disseminating DNC emails to hurt Hillary) happening in real-time, so it was by no means garbage. Moreover, the same claim made by the Australians twice about Papadopoulos, was also confirmed by Mueller's own interview with Papadopoulos.

They could say they knew about Russia hacking the DNC.....they could have been told by the FBI when the FBI informed them that Russia also hacked the RNC. They could have come forward and said that Assange told them it was the Russians who dumped info on WikiLeaks. None of these things would have made them "complicit". Presidential campaigns aren't detective agencies.

There's no need to speculate, the fact remains that Papadopoulos was indicating he knew about the Russian interference to hurt Hillary as early as May, 2016, and he told an Australian diplomat. Complicit means knowing of a crime that Russia is engaged in against America and not reporting it to authorities.

Nothing in the email refers to Putin or any Russian government officials. It refers to a Russian pop star. You're only kidding yourself there. Don Jr made them public himself in the hope of transparency.

I'm just stating the facts. Here is what the email says, and it specifically mentions the government of Russia:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Don junior claims he released this email for the purpose of transparency, but this release came over a year after the fact, and it had already been reported that the emails existed and were going to come out anyway. The email shows the Trump campaign knew Russia was helping them in early June of 2016.

Wrong.

The evidence shows that Trump would not admit Russia interfered.

Trump started the Russia hoax? Is that a serious statement?

I provided Trump's own words showing how and when he started it.

What slander? I can certainly understand why the man didn't trust these various entities for essentially trying to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.

The slander is that the Democrats made up the story of the DNC being hacked by Russia. Essentially, Trump is calling them liars.

Trump himself was not under investigation at the outset of crossfire hurricane. As far as I know he became a subject of the investigation only after firing Comey and trying to get Rosenstein to sate publicly it was Rosenstein's idea.

Lol compromised?

Yeah. Once Trump denied Russia was helping his campaign, he was in a compromised position, since Russia could threaten him with revealing the email that showed his campaign knew all along that the Government of Russia was actively helping his campaign.

That's typical of a presidential candidate who is falsely being blamed for the same crimes by his opponent.

You're in a contradiction above. Because in an earlier post you admit that it was criminal activity by Russia. I don't recall anybody blaming Trump for Russia's crime.
Ana the Ist said:
Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.

Also, the part of the report by Fox news only cites Donald Trump denying Russia hacked the DNC, saying it's a made-up story and subsequently denies a crime ever happened. The full report is showing that the DNC is simply reporting that they were hacked by Russia and there is no report of anyone blaming candidate Trump.

Hillary would go on to make similar accusations of Tulsi Gabbard in the 2020 nomination process. That's rather odd considering that she wasn't even in that race. She's definitely an expert in spreading disinformation though... and it's a shame she wasn't prosecuted once it was found out she was behind the Steele dossier.

This is irrelevant to crossfire hurricane and the crime of Russian interference. Again, there is nothing in the report from the DNC that blames Trump. It specifically blames Russia.

One of those moments where Trump was telling the truth. Sure, it was a guess....but as the Mueller Investigation and now the Durham report revealed....100% true.

On the contrary it is 100% a false statement and it is easily proven.
(1) Every official report including Durham's, all conclude that it was in fact Russia that infiltrated the DNC server and stole information.
(2) Every report shows factual evidence that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump including Don juniors email.
(3) The statement itself is a contradiction in reasoning since it alleges the reason for making up the story that Russia interfered was to explain why the Democrats lost, when in fact the forensics report from crowd strike showing that Russia hacked the DNC was published almost five months before the election ever took place.
(4) You yourself admit that Russia was indicted for these crimes.
Ana the Ist said:
Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.

Again, this is a man still being investigated by his own federal government basically the entire time in office....for the crime of running for President. He's still facing prosecution for it. They don't want him running again. I think the Georgia case is the most likely chance if they have a chance at all....and I doubt they do. We're talking about something 3 years old soon....if they had something it would be apparent by now.

This above is irrelevant. The fact is Trump is shown expressing his unbelief that Russia hacked the DNC by saying he wants to see the server. His claim that it's a hoax invented by the Democrats is his invention from the time it was first reported by crowd strike.

And he was correct. I understand that a lot of people believe that Hunter Biden has legitimate jobs as a lawyer in the Ukraine....despite not having any relevant experience and being a crack addict at the time....and the job isn't one that existed solely for the political influence of Biden, but I'm not one of those people. There's easily thousands of more qualified lawyers and no evidence Hunter did any real work outside of using his father to squash a corruption investigation into Burisma.

To drive home the point....there's people on here literally saying that withholding aid to Ukraine because Trump wanted an investigation started is illegal....

Yet when Biden withheld aid to get an investigation ended....no problem? It's literally an investigation into the company his son works for and he's almost certainly getting a cut from. Forget about the billions in aid and military support he's handed them since. He appears to have admitted on camera what everyone wanted Trump impeached over.

Everything you say above is irrelevant since Trump is referring to the DNC server, not Hunter's laptop. And Trump is not correct in his disability to admit that every report shows Russia as being responsible for stealing the information from the DNC server that was released online.

 

[childeye 2]

No....they either violated their own procedures or they didn't.

Of course, but the OIG is talking about the handling of wiener's laptop here, and specifically the IG is criticizing a blatant lack of action in taking so long to do a relatively simple task. In other words, the longer it takes the more detrimental it becomes for the Clinton campaign which goes against FBI protocols.

You seem to be making a big deal of this....the idea that the FBI only formally announced an investigation they shouldn't have ever done in the first place.

Not at all. I'm just stating a simple fact that the FBI would not announce a counterintelligence operation and let their counterpart (Russia) know what they are doing. And also, that this particular investigation was opened as a SIM, so it would also be kept from public view in that sense as well.

Sure....their attempt to frame Trump to deflect from HRC's intel screw up is purely coincidence.

This misunderstanding was already settled in a court of law. Two separate juries heard testimony and weighed the evidence and unanimously concluded there was nothing there in Durhams allegations.

Ok....why does that matter?

(1) You claimed in #114 that Durham's highlighting of bias in the FBI was not based on bias.
This was in reference to the FBI immediately opening crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation, which you opposed on the grounds that it would give the impression of guilt to the voting public, and I quote, "That way you don't give the impression of guilt in the minds of the voting public".

(2) You indicated that crossfire hurricane was publicly known in #117.

You have the Clinton campaign and the media all suggesting that Trump was involved with the Russians.

Actually, it began with announcing in June 2016 that Russia was behind the infiltration of the DNC computer system, stealing information and disseminating it online. It then logically progressed to suggesting that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary's campaign. Which then suggested that Putin wanted Trump over Hillary. Which then progressed to wondering why. Which logically suggested that Putin feels he's going to get something from Trump that he could not get with Hillary. And I note that what was discussed at Trump tower, according to testimony was the Magnitsky act, the sanctions against Russia for invading Crimea.

Meanwhile Trump was denying that Russia was even behind the interference, compounding the problem by claiming it was a hoax invented by the Democrats. And he was actively portraying Putin as a great leader, and how he would get along with Putin, and how great it would be if we would all get along with Putin, and how Putin would not respect Hillary but would respect him. Trump even publicly stated "Russia if you're listening" I hope you find Hillary's missing emails.

Is this supposed to be praise for the FBI? Is it supposed to be praise for the public? What is your point?

It's just saying why the FBI kept the crossfire hurricane investigation a secret.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? You're acting like the public was aware of the hacking....but assumed the FBI wasn't investigating it.

I can't speak for others, but I assumed the FBI were investigating it. The fact that Crossfire Hurricane was not made public needs to be brought up because assuming that the FBI was investigating the hacking is not the same as assuming they were investigating collusion.

What false equivalency? I think he's pointing out these two incidents weren't handled equivalently.

Since discovering additional Hillary emails on Anthony Wiener's laptop is not even close to approaching the same category of criminality as Russia throwing a Presidential election in Putin's favor, it goes without saying that these two incidents were not going to be handled equivalently.

Durham's investigative report reads as bias speculation talking as if the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane to cast aspersions about Trump at the behest of a plot by Hillary, rather than to legitimately find out whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. The fact that Crossfire Hurricane was not publicly announced should have eliminated that conspiratorial accusation.

You're aware that new HRC emails were found on the laptop right?

You're aware that multiple classified documents/intel was found in her emails, right?

Yes, I am aware and informed, and it was more a matter over debating what should qualify as classified and what shouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that Wiener's laptop investigation was not dealing with a national security threat, nor did it even open as a SIM.

Ok....you seem to think Durham was biased or used bad logic or something.

No, I proved it by simply showing an obvious false equivalency. Wiener's laptop investigation was publicly announced, Crossfire hurricane was not publicly announced. Emails related to Clinton case were found during investigation of Anthony Weiner

 

[Yarddog]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html

YES - that is CNN reporting:

Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.​

​

Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.​

​

“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Durham said in his report.​

​

​

So, Durham found the same thing that Mueller said.

 

[childeye 2]

So, Durham found the same thing that Mueller said.

col·lu·sion
NOUN

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:

co·op·er·ate
[kōˈäpəˌrāt]

VERB
work jointly toward the same end.

co·or·di·nate
[coordinate]
VERB

1. bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony:

You're basically correct if your intended sentiment is that Mueller did not establish there was an agreed upon attempt to interfere with the election between Russia and the Trump campaign. But Mueller doesn't actually say there was no "cooperation". Mueller does not even use the term "collusion" and he specifically made note of that. Instead, he uses the terms "conspire" and "coordinate". This nuance is probably lost on the general public, but the term "collusion" is about "cooperating" as compared to "coordinating". As pertains to not "coordinating" with the Russian government, please note the qualifier at the end of the following statement "interference activities".

Mueller report:
“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the [Trump] Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

“we understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered foreign agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and Wikileaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not sure what you're referring to here...be specific.

See post 133.

Make a point. If I miss it... then you can accuse me of missing a point. You have to actually make a point first though.

My point was that the quoted part of the Durham report missed candidate Donald publicly asking the Russians to hack his opponents emails when claiming there was no reason to investigate his campaign's connection with Russian attempts to interfere in the election.
Whether that was intentional or not, it is not a sign the report should be taken seriously by anyone looking for a factual take on the events.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, Durham found the same thing that Mueller said.

Nah, Mueller actually found things which resulted in people getting sent to jail.

 

[Yarddog]

Nah, Mueller actually found things which resulted in people getting sent to jail.

I was talking about the collusion part. Mueller's investigation was definitely much more productive than Durham's.

 

[stevil]

Yet his beef with the FBI is not that they had no justification for Crossfire, but the FBI didn't invoke a preliminary process first..aka norms.

And the people that were screaming out that the Republican overseen Special Council investigation went on for too long (2 years) into Trump campaign members conspiring with Russians to interfere in the election.
None of them were concerned about the Durham investigation going on for 4 years and showing very, very little.

 

[Ana the Ist]

See post 133.

If you're referring to this....

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016, news conference.

www.google.com

A senior Trump campaign adviser later told CNBC that Trump "wasn't calling on anyone to intervene, but instead was pushing anyone who has them to hand them over to authorities."

Had Hillary's staff not deleted the emails, it seems unlikely he would have made the request for help. Such public requests during criminal investigations are actually quite common in our society. It's true they are rarely successful....but that's not evidence of coordination or collusion.

My point was that the quoted part of the Durham report missed candidate Donald publicly asking the Russians to hack his opponents emails when claiming there was no reason to investigate his campaign's connection with Russian attempts to interfere in the election.
Whether that was intentional or not, it is not a sign the report should be taken seriously by anyone looking for a factual take on the events.

I see....your point was based on some faulty version of events that never happened.

Consider finding a hobby that doesn't require making up alternative facts and events that didn't happen. I hear jigsaw puzzles can be fun.

 

[stevil]

If you're referring to this....

Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016, news conference.

www.google.com

A senior Trump campaign adviser later told CNBC that Trump "wasn't calling on anyone to intervene, but instead was pushing anyone who has them to hand them over to authorities."

LOL!
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,"

In USA does the word "press" refer to the authorities?

 

[KCfromNC]

I was talking about the collusion part.

Post 147 does a good job explaining the issues surrounding the word collusion.
And the quote from Durham's report is factually wrong, since candidate Trump publicly called for Russia to hack Clinton's emails before the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started, which is the evidence Durham's report is ignorant of.
So I guess I can can't really agree that the two investigations agreed.

 

[KCfromNC]

A senior Trump campaign adviser later told CNBC that Trump "wasn't calling on anyone to intervene, but instead was pushing anyone who has them to hand them over to authorities."

Yeah, and the guy was going to get Mexico to pay for a border wall and replace Obamacare with something better.

Come on, who would be dumb enough to fall for all these stories?

I see....your point was based on some faulty version of events that never happened.

Consider finding a hobby that doesn't require making up alternative facts and events that didn't happen. I hear jigsaw puzzles can be fun.

Again, the need for grade-school insults when the facts don't line up with the right-wing narrative. It would be worth a chuckle if it wasn't just so boring at this point.

 

[childeye 2]

Post 147 does a good job explaining the issues surrounding the word collusion.
And the quote from Durham's report is factually wrong, since candidate Trump publicly called for Russia to hack Clinton's emails before the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started, which is the evidence Durham's report is ignorant of.
So I guess I can can't really agree that the two investigations agreed.

You are correct. This line in Durhams report would not qualify as factual because it presents as his own conjecture and displays his own bias along with an intention to mislead. Because not only was the FBI aware that Trump wanted Russia to find Hillary's emails, but the documented predicate from the Australians would definitely qualify as evidence of Papadopoulos knowing Russia was involving themselves. Durham knew that the FBI would have to investigate but his purpose is to present the FBI investigation as motivated by bias.

Therefore, Durham says "appears": neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Durham said in his report.

It's clear to me that the Trump campaign worked jointly and secretly with Russia to the same end (cooperated/colluded). The campaign knew Russia was involving themselves and they played dumb to the public which qualifies as keeping it secret.

That alone is evidence of cooperation. But also, Roger Stone had a contact with WikiLeaks, and he was even willing to go to prison rather than give up their identity. And Manafort was reportedly sending Kilimnik internal polling data. And we know Manafort and Gates worked for years under Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, whose anti-west party was against NATO membership for Ukraine. How they ended up running the campaign is beyond coincidental.

It's conceivable how that's only the tip of the iceberg and Mueller for whatever reason just couldn't gather enough evidence to show coordination. I think at the least it's pretty clear Russia wanted sanctions for invading Crimea removed, and Hillary was not going to do that. There's even video footage of Trump being asked at a press conference in 2014 whether Trump would be willing to lift those sanctions, and the person asking the question just so happened to be Maria Butina, who was convicted in 2018 of working as an unregistered foreign agent of Russia.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree that they act as a news reporting website that leaks information otherwise kept secret from the public, hence the name WikiLeaks. They can even claim they report 100% facts, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not propaganda. For example, if Russia intended to hurt Hillary, Russia would simply select only what is negative and omit the positives to release through WikiLeaks to create a false impression.

Positives?

But that is not even a point I'm arguing as it's irrelevant to the issue of whether the Trump campaign is aware of Russia interfering to hurt Hillary and whether they are complicit. To that end, I want to state a fact that can be safely reasoned upon. That is why I stated that it wasn't until June 14, 2016, that crowd strike published its forensic examination of the DNC server, so that I can contrast that with Mifsud's claim to Papadopoulos that he knew in April that Russia had emails belonging to Clinton and that they were going to release them anonymously to hurt Hillary.

Right....what part of this do you think needs explaining?

There is no reason to speculate. The official reports all say the same thing. According to Papadopoulos he heard it from Misfud. The reasoning would end in a contradiction to think it was Hillary. It would suggest that Hillary hacked the DNC to hurt her own campaign.

That wasn't what I was suggesting.

The classified security briefing was given to candidate Trump in August 2016. Aides like Papadopoulos are not allowed unless they first obtain security clearance.

Oh in August? Well....just in time.

The Durham report conveys that the FBI weighed warning Papadopoulos about Russian tactics, but the experts in counter espionage felt doing that would cause Russia to change tactics and make it more difficult to track what they were doing.

Well that's a problem then.

I qualified my meaning as anyone in the Trump campaign who knew of the crime happening (Russian interference in the election) before it was announced that Russia was behind the stealing of documents from the DNC, and I was referencing Papadopoulos.

I'm certain lots of people in both campaigns knew. WikiLeaks had it in March after all.

I am not implying anyone was trying to tie the Trump campaign to the crime. It certainly was not a mistake to investigate whether the Trump campaign were aware or unaware of the predicament caused by Russia interfering on their behalf and whether they were coordinating with Russia.

If there was any evidence of such crimes....sure.

That's a reasonable standard....otherwise, mere allegations can turn the FBI loose on any candidate.

The Australian report not only was documented but verified by the crime of interference (hacking and disseminating DNC emails to hurt Hillary) happening in real-time, so it was by no means garbage.

Ok....what does "documented and verified" mean? The fact that Russia is interfering isn'tevidence Trump was involved.

Moreover, the same claim made by the Australians twice about Papadopoulos, was also confirmed by Mueller's own interview with Papadopoulos.

There's no need to speculate, the fact remains that Papadopoulos was indicating he knew about the Russian interference to hurt Hillary as early as May, 2016, and he told an Australian diplomat. Complicit means knowing of a crime that Russia is engaged in against America and not reporting it to authorities.

Indicating? What was said?

I'm just stating the facts. Here is what the email says, and it specifically mentions the government of Russia:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Don junior claims he released this email for the purpose of transparency, but this release came over a year after the fact, and it had already been reported that the emails existed and were going to come out anyway. The email shows the Trump campaign knew Russia was helping them in early June of 2016.

Lol ok. The email doesn't show any such thing.

The evidence shows that Trump would not admit Russia interfered.

How would Trump know what actions were taken by Russia?

I provided Trump's own words showing how and when he started it.

Sorry....which post?

The slander is that the Democrats made up the story of the DNC being hacked by Russia. Essentially, Trump is calling them liars.

I don't know if it was slander or speculation. Regardless, the mainstream media slandered Trump from 2016 to now. What exactly are you concerned about?

Trump himself was not under investigation at the outset of crossfire hurricane. As far as I know he became a subject of the investigation only after firing Comey and trying to get Rosenstein to sate publicly it was Rosenstein's idea.

Yeah. Once Trump denied Russia was helping his campaign, he was in a compromised position, since Russia could threaten him with revealing the email that showed his campaign knew all along that the Government of Russia was actively helping his campaign.

Are you talking about the email above?

Lol what part of that is incriminating?

Russia saying that they wanted to help Trump and sending him an email saying the same....doesn't leave Trump compromised.

He's really only compromised if a deal was made either tacit or explicit.

You're in a contradiction above. Because in an earlier post you admit that it was criminal activity by Russia. I don't recall anybody blaming Trump for Russia's crime.
Ana the Ist said:
Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.

Many people here claimed that indeed Trump worked with Putin. More voices in the media made the same claim. Odd that they would do so without any knowledge of someone investigating.

Also, the part of the report by Fox news only cites Donald Trump denying Russia hacked the DNC, saying it's a made-up story and subsequently denies a crime ever happened. The full report is showing that the DNC is simply reporting that they were hacked by Russia and there is no report of anyone blaming candidate Trump.

Anyone in the FBI or anyone at all?

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487356470/why-would-vladimir-putin-want-to-leak-the-dnc-emails

I thought we were past this point. No one was blaming Trump....please. Read some articles from back then.

This is irrelevant to crossfire hurricane and the crime of Russian interference. Again, there is nothing in the report from the DNC that blames Trump. It specifically blames Russia.

Right....despite much speculation about Trump’s involvement.

On the contrary it is 100% a false statement and it is easily proven.
(1) Every official report including Durham's, all conclude that it was in fact Russia that infiltrated the DNC server and stole information.

Right.

(2) Every report shows factual evidence that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump including Don juniors email.

Sure.

(3) The statement itself is a contradiction in reasoning since it alleges the reason for making up the story that Russia interfered was to explain why the Democrats lost, when in fact the forensics report from crowd strike showing that Russia hacked the DNC was published almost five months before the election ever took place.

? Not sure what you're saying here....it's not much of an excuse if it happened after the election.

(4) You yourself admit that Russia was indicted for these crimes.
Ana the Ist said:
Absolutely. Russians were indicted on these crimes.

Right.

This above is irrelevant. The fact is Trump is shown expressing his unbelief that Russia hacked the DNC by saying he wants to see the server. His claim that it's a hoax invented by the Democrats is his invention from the time it was first reported by crowd strike.

Because you believe he should have trusted crowd strike.

Everything you say above is irrelevant since Trump is referring to the DNC server, not Hunter's laptop. And Trump is not correct in his disability to admit that every report shows Russia as being responsible for stealing the information from the DNC server that was released online.

Sorry, I thought his 2019 discussion with Ukraine referred to his attempt to find dirt on Biden.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, and the guy was going to get Mexico to pay for a border wall and replace Obamacare with something better.

Come on, who would be dumb enough to fall for all these stories?


Again, the need for grade-school insults when the facts don't line up with the right-wing narrative. It would be worth a chuckle if it wasn't just so boring at this point.

I asked you about your point. You said...

"My point was that the quoted part of the Durham report missed candidate Donald publicly asking the Russians to hack his opponents emails...."

I assumed that you were referring to the incident in the article that I linked. You'll notice that he doesn't ask the Russians to hack anyone.

So the thing that you believe you saw happen....literally didn't happen. Anything else?

 

[childeye 2]

Positives?

I trust that you understood what I meant, and this is sarcasm.

Right....what part of this do you think needs explaining?

I explain myself because I want to be understood. And you don't seem to be following the logic of my reasoning because your responses are irrelevant to the point. The point being that nobody in the general public knew it was Russia until the forensics were published by crowd strike on June 14.

That wasn't what I was suggesting.

Okay, but the discourse implies you were saying that Papadopoulos could have heard it from Assange or Hillary. This is why I said you don't seem to be following my reasoning because speculating about it doesn't factor into my reasoning, since it only matters what Papadopoulos says he learned of and believed to be true in May, before anybody knew it was the Russians. Note that the documents the Australian's presented in late July didn't say where Papadopoulos heard it from, so there's no reason to speculate.

Oh in August? Well....just in time.

The presidential candidates always get their briefings after the National conventions, but this was an unprecedented scale of events.

Well that's a problem then.

Indeed, it is a problem when an adversary is covertly influencing the outcome of an election, and again this is on a scale that is unprecedented. The important thing to note is that the FBI's deliberation is focused upon how to counter Russia.

I'm certain lots of people in both campaigns knew. WikiLeaks had it in March after all.

WikiLeaks having documents in March does not address whether it's Russia that stole the documents. Certainly, the Hillary campaign didn't know until crowd strike made a forensics determination. If you actually think Trump knew it was Russia in March, then you are admitting you think he lied to America.

If there was any evidence of such crimes....sure.

That's a reasonable standard....otherwise, mere allegations can turn the FBI loose on any candidate.

Glad to see you on record acknowledging that. Because yes there was evidence in July that Russia was interfering in the election, which is a crime.

Ok....what does "documented and verified" mean? The fact that Russia is interfering isn'tevidence Trump was involved.

Documented means the Australians had documented their accounts contemporaneously. Verified pertains to what Papadopoulos heard in May, that Russia was going to criminally interfere, and the verification is that the crime was happening at the time the FBI received the documents from the Australians. And I agree it's not evidence that Trump was involved, I'm only saying it was evidence that Papadopoulos heard in May that Russia was going to interfere in the election to hurt Hillary.

Indicating? What was said?

I don't understand why you would ask this. Because you should know what the predicate for the investigation was, and the predicate states what was said, and moreover Papadopoulos confirmed what the predicate said in his testimony to Mueller.

Lol ok. The email doesn't show any such thing.

Don junior and Manafort knew because they met with the Russian representatives. Don junior even stated publicly that the Russians offered dirt on Hillary. I stated that the email shows the Trump campaign knew Russia was helping them in early June of 2016 and it clearly does. I'm referring to Don junior and all who read the email, and how the email says Russia is offering information that would incriminate Hillary, and that it's part of the Russian government's support in favor of Trump.

Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

This email above clearly indicates that Russia wants to help the Trump campaign.

How would Trump know what actions were taken by Russia?

This is what I said: "The evidence shows that Trump would not admit Russia interfered".

Trump obviously knew the actions taken by Russia in his own reactionary statement is referencing the theft of documents from the DNC server and disseminating them online, since he's denying that it was Russia.

Sorry....which post?

Post #120

I don't know if it was slander or speculation. Regardless, the mainstream media slandered Trump from 2016 to now. What exactly are you concerned about?

Speculation is presented as a hypothetical. If the News media slandered Trump, he could sue them. But that is irrelevant to my point which is that Trump started the Russia hoax by claiming the Democrats made up the story that Russia infiltrated the DNC.

Are you talking about the email above?

Lol what part of that is incriminating?

I'm talking about the email from Russia offering official documents that they claimed would incriminate Hillary, and the subsequent meeting with Russian representatives. I didn't say it was incriminating, I said the email about offering dirt on Hillary showed that the Trump campaign knew that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help them. What's incriminating for the Trump campaign is that they lied about having no ties or contacts with Russians and called the Russian interference a hoax made up by the Democrats.

Russia saying that they wanted to help Trump and sending him an email saying the same....doesn't leave Trump compromised.

He's really only compromised if a deal was made either tacit or explicit.

All Trump had to do is state publicly that his campaign had no ties or communications with Russians. The Russians would then have the kompromat to threaten Trump with revealing that he was not being truthful to the American public.

Many people here claimed that indeed Trump worked with Putin. More voices in the media made the same claim. Odd that they would do so without any knowledge of someone investigating.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to how Trump started the Russian hoax. All I saw in the media was the logical progression of hypotheticals that begin with wondering why the Russians would hack the DNC.

Anyone in the FBI or anyone at all?

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/25/487356470/why-would-vladimir-putin-want-to-leak-the-dnc-emails

I thought we were past this point. No one was blaming Trump....please. Read some articles from back then.

The article you provide doesn't show anyone blaming Trump. It is accusing Russia of wanting to help Trump win.

"Why would Russian President Vladimir Putin want to help Donald Trump win the White House? That's the accusation from Democrats this week..."

Right.

Sure.

Every official report contradicts Trump's claim that it was a hoax invented by the Democrats.

Feb. 16, 2017 Trump tweet:
The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!

Not sure what you're saying here....it's not much of an excuse if it happened after the election.

To be precise, Trump said The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!

What I'm saying is, since the "story" of Russian interference was reported by the Democrats in June 2016, BEFORE the election had even taken place, and BEFORE anyone had lost, it could not possibly qualify as being invented as an excuse for losing.

Right.

Yes, that's right. Russia was indicted for the criminal activity of election interference, wherefore Trump is wrong that it was a made-up story by the Democrats.

Because you believe he should have trusted crowd strike.

I think that a normal candidate for President would have taken the published forensics seriously. And I think a normal President would have trusted the U.S. Intelligence community over Putin.

Sorry, I though his 2019 discussion with Ukraine referred to his attempt to find dirt on Biden.

The first thing Trump wanted from Zelensky was to look into crowd strike and the server of the DNC.

 

[KCfromNC]

I asked you about your point. You said...

"My point was that the quoted part of the Durham report missed candidate Donald publicly asking the Russians to hack his opponents emails...."

I assumed that you were referring to the incident in the article that I linked. You'll notice that he doesn't ask the Russians to hack anyone.

He asked Russia to "find" emails from his opponent which were not publicly available. How are you saying that was supposed to happen, exactly?

Not that any of this nitpicking over what euphemism Donald used has anything to do with the issue here - that as a candidate, Donald asked for help from the Russian government. And that happened prior to the FBI investigation into Russia's involvement in the election - the one which Durham felt there was no reason to start.

It shows that Durhams feelings on the matter weren't well informed by reality. This lack of factual basis could be why his investigation turned up empty.