John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No it is not - it is the left and their media lapdogs twisting a snide remark. Remember - the server Trump was referring to was gone - wiped clean by Hillary's team - it DID NOT exist -

A completely different served was hacked.

And if you really think the Russians heard him on TV and said "hey! sounds like a good idea, let's do it!", I have some ocean front property in Kansas I'd like you to buy.

Also remember this was not the first hack

The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks took place in 2015 and 2016,[1] in which two groups of Russian computer hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network, leading to a data breach. Cybersecurity experts, as well as the U.S. government, determined that the cyberespionage was the work of Russian intelligence agencies.

Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian intelligence agencies separately infiltrated the DNC computer systems. The American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which removed the hacking programs, revealed a history of encounters with both groups and had already named them, calling one of them Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear, names which are used in the media.[2][3][4][5][6]

When Trump speaks I believe him. They did exactly what he wanted them to do. It's on record. There's tapes. There's video. There's transcripts. There's computer forensic evidence of where the hacks came from. This is settled. I don't know why you're so invested in defending/denying it. Just accept that it happened and move on. Maybe you can be his next lawyer since he's having trouble finding anyone to represent him?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Facts are not assertions. Apparently, you assume I'm making assertions. As a means of establishing a working timeline of the known events, I'm only interested in when the general public was factually made aware of the forensics report and not the various speculations that were occurring prior to that.

Why do you think this matters?

I only want to focus on the facts, because all the semantics will hinge on whether or not Russia in fact infiltrated the DNC and disseminated that information to hurt Hillary and help Trump. There's the motive and the criminal act that identify the true connotations of the terms and it's not subject to speculation or opinion.

Ok.

According to the facts as presented in all official reports, the statement above that it's an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor, must itself be based on bias and not objective reality.

It is an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor. That's an objective fact.

The Australians are repeating to the best of their recollection what they purport to have heard Papadopoulos say, so under that description they are providing "raw information", and therefore are not making "allegations".

Raw information about the doings of someone is an allegation. It's unanalyzed, uncorraborated, information. That's an allegation.

In view of the semantics here, the only "allegation" I see would be against Russia, and it would be coming from Papadopoulos who conveys to the Australians that the Russians have information to release on Clinton that would hurt her and help Trump. Although it's certain Papadopoulos didn't intend to accuse the Russians of interfering, that's essentially what he's suggesting would happen if they did release information so as to damage the Hillary campaign.

doc·u·ment
noun

a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as an official record.

The problem with the word document and documentation is that the noun and verb form are the same essentially. It gives the wrong impression regarding the veracity of the information.

The Australians made a record of their encounter with Papadopoulos which qualifies as contemporaneous documentation of an event.

If they did that, they should have provided it as evidence at the time. They might have looked stupid if they were wrong...but it would have been higher quality evidence.

It therefore goes on the timeline of "events". The Durham report itself uses that description as well, describing the Australian accounts of their encounters with Papadopoulos as "documented". See for yourself.

The Durham report: "Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos.

al·le·ga·tion
noun

1. a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

See above, that by definition an allegation has to be about (1) something illegal or wrong that is alleged to have (2) happened (past tense).

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

I don't know where you got your definition but legally speaking, an allegation is any assertions made with little or no proof or evidence.

If the Durham report is predisposed to bias, we can expect the semantics to end in contradictions if and when it characterizes the Australians as making allegations that the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russians. But that's not what paragraph 5 says, nor how it should be perceived by the FBI. Paragraph 5 in reality declares they don't know if there is any collaboration, only that one of them surmised that Russia approached Papadopoulos in some way revealing an intention to assist the Trump campaign.

Paragraph 5:
"He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly of [sic] through other means. It was also unclear how Mr[.] Trump's team reacted to the offer".

The allegation is that the conversation even happened.

There can be no allegation above that the Trump team had conspired (2) (past tense) with the Russians because it literally states it was unclear how Trump's team reacted. There can be no allegation that the Trump team did (1) something illegal or wrong because Papadopoulos knew of assistance from Russia. The only possible allegation I see of any wrongdoing is against Russia in the form of allegedly trying to compromise one or more people in the Trump campaign.

And furthermore, I note that the FBI saw it that way also as this was their given purpose for the investigation: "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. "


As I have proven above, the facts show there was no allegation of conspiring with Russian representatives in Paragraph 5.

The fact that Papadopoulos lied during the FBI investigation is irrelevant to the reason for opening the crossfire hurricane investigation.

I disagree.

The FBI opened the counterintelligence operation because they didn't know if anyone was conspiring or being compromised. It even indicates this in both the Horowitz and Durham reports. And I quote, "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. "

As for the results of the investigation, you should look at the Mueller report and the lies of Papadopoulos that Mueller had proven to be fabricated intentionally. When I read about them, they point to the things he was hiding.

See above, the facts show that there was no allegation made by the Australians, they just provided raw information in the form of documented accounts.

Were they documented (verb)? That's
a past tense verb in my eyes.

When we believe in a falsehood, it manifests emotions that are not based in reality, which is why so many people are demented.

If I wanted a 1st year therapy session I'd ask.

Again, it's not an allegation, it's contemporaneous evidence of an encounter and an abstract account of what occurred during that encounter.

It's an allegation until corroborated or evidence is given.

Think of this. If you wrote down (documented) an account that you claimed to be true, and later it was found out to not be true but intentionally fabricated, it would then be documentation that you were a liar, but it's still documentation and evidence of a lie. Anyway, that is not the case here, which is why there are no charges of lying to the FBI being handed down by Durham to the Australians. We even have the testimony of Papadopoulos himself in the Mueller report corroborating the Australian account:

As Papadopoulos later stated to the FBI, Mifsud said that the “dirt” was in the form of “emails of Clinton,” and that they “have thousands of emails.”464 On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

This is a fruitless avenue of discussion since it didn't happen that way in reality.

Well that was after they opened a full investigation....which they shouldn't have.

Please note above that you're on record seemingly claiming two contradictory claims. You claimed, "Nor do I", meaning (Nor do I see any allegation against Papadopoulos), then you definitively claim the contrary, "those are allegations though". Allegations made by who, and against who?

Look up the word allegation.

allegation

www.law.cornell.edu

Here, Cornell Law School ought to be sufficient. An allegation is a claim of fact not yet proven true. So the allegations of the Australians were indeed mere allegations. They had not been proven true.

This is why I told you that any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in a contradiction. The falsehood is in your own bias as I pointed out earlier in this post: "the statement above, that it's an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor, is itself based on bias and not the facts".

"Even worse, if they don't allege a crime, why did the FBI move to a full criminal investigation? We would call that a witch hunt".

The cynicism as seen above is self-fulfilling because when finding yourself in an apparent contradiction you then double down claiming a witch hunt, regardless of whether there was an allegation or there wasn't. You seem to forget that crossfire hurricane was a counterintelligence investigation that opened in the midst of a criminal investigation that was already underway prior to crossfire hurricane.

"Even worse, if they don't allege a crime, why did the FBI move to a full criminal investigation? We would call that a witch hunt".

Who is we? Please Don't count me in with the demented, because it is well established in press releases and by every official report on Russian interference, including the Durham report, that prior to crossfire hurricane, the FBI was already in the criminal investigation into Russian "hacking" and "dissemination" of the DNC communications, which is the actual crime that was already underway when the Australians provided paragraph 5.

Whereas crossfire hurricane was opened as a counter-intelligence operation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia ", (which was opened as a SIM).


This is just more bias and more dementing. The Australian documentation about Russia offering the Trump campaign assistance against the Hillary campaign was recorded in May 2016 on the timeline, and the Hillary campaign reported publicly of the Russian interference on June 14 of the timeline. The reality is that the Hillary campaign began saying over a month later, the same narrative Papadopoulos had been saying over a month earlier.

The investigation wasn't into Trump so that part of your statement is wrong. However, the information from the Australians presented did imply that Papadopoulos had knowledge in early May about possible Russian interference in a free and fair election. It was a unanimous decision, with a need to know as a matter of national security, and even the Durham report says they were obligated to investigate.


It's absurd to suggest that the DNC would decide to hack their own server and release information anonymously that would hurt their own candidate, as "a distraction from the issues facing their flawed candidate and failed party leader".

As per the Russian allegation against Hillary, this is what you are referring to:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

Concerning the above, look at these facts:

The Russian intelligence allegation is that Hillary initiated a plan to try and tie Trump with the Russian hacking of the DNC in late July.

Notice that the allegation does not claim the DNC hacked the DNC, nor does it deny that Russia hacked the DNC, so it therefore wouldn't corroborate Donald Trump's absurd DNC hacked itself claim, and his rejection that Russia was behind the cyber intrusion of the DNC server.

Moreover, the Russian allegation places Hillary Clinton's approval of this plan as happening in late July, 2016, when in fact the FBI identified the spear phishing campaign as happening In March and May 2016. So, Russia's alleged Hillary plan would not make Trump's DNC hacked itself statement a possibility.

Instead, the Russian allegation looks more like an attempt to give an appearance of veracity to what Don Junior said to Jake Tapper on CNN July 24, 2016. That's around the time Hillary is alleged by the Russians to have come up with this plan.

JAKE TAPPER: So, I don't know if you were hearing earlier, but Robby Mook, the campaign manager for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — I asked him about the DNC leak. And he suggested that experts are saying that Russians were behind both the leak — the hacking of the DNC emails and their release. He seemed to be suggesting that this is part of a plot to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Your response?

Please keep in mind when you read this response to Tapper, that Don junior has already met with Russians at Trump Tower, and already knows that Russia wants to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

TRUMP JR.: Well, it just goes to show you their exact moral compass. I mean, they will say anything to be able to win this. I mean, this is time and time again, lie after lie. You notice he won't say, well, I say this. We hear experts. You know, here's (INAUDIBLE) at home once said that this is what's happening with the Russians. It's disgusting. It's so phony. I watched him bumble through the interview, I was able to hear it on audio a little bit (Did he hear it or watch it?). I mean, I can't think of bigger lies, but that exactly goes to show you what the DNC and what the Clinton camp will do. They will lie and do anything to win. July 24, 2016.

July 26, 2016, Russian intelligence allegation: U.S Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee.


Probably was? Possibly not? Definitely not? Either Russia infiltrated the DNC as crowd strike forensics show, and the FBI has verified, and also every official report has claimed, and also every intelligence agency has claimed, or the DNC "hacked" itself Like Donald said.

The reason for the investigation was "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. "

Concerning those methods of CHS's and other means, the Durham report states that all the FBI analysts found Papadopoulos' denials of the campaign having knowledge of Wikileaks releases to be fake and rehearsed.

The crossfire hurricane investigation into Russian interference became part of the Special counsel Mueller investigation and ultimately indicted Roger Stone as having a contact with WikiLeaks and being a go between for the campaign and Wikileaks. According to the indictment, in June or July 2016, Stone was informing the Trump campaign about possible Wikileaks release of damaging Clinton documents.

Now that you understand the difference between an allegation and documenting an event....are we good?

 

[childeye 2]

Why do you think this matters?

As I said before, it goes on a timeline that shows the Trump campaign knew Russia wanted to help Trump and hurt the Hillary campaign before the Hillary campaign confirmed it was Russia that hacked the DNC. The Don junior email June 3, the Trump Tower meeting June 9, Crowd strike publication June 14.

It is an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor. That's an objective fact.

It wouldn't even matter if it were true that they were bias. Papadopoulos verified their accounts. And later Don junior verified their accounts.

Raw information about the doings of someone is an allegation. It's unanalyzed, uncorraborated, information. That's an allegation.

Papadopoulos stated he had heard that Russia had dirt on Hillary in early May according to Mueller, Horowitz, and Durham. That much was already partly corroborated at the time the Australians came forward with the raw information, because the FBI were already in a criminal investigation into Russian hacking of the DNC at the time, and they already knew that the spear phishing operations had taken place in March and May.

This is from the Durham report: "Specifically, during his first interview with the Crossfire Hurricane Agents on January 27, 2017, Papadopoulos told the Agents about an individual associated with a London-based entity who had told him about the Russians having "dirt" on Clinton.

This above purportedly happened at the end of April. Don Junior got the email offering dirt in early June, and they met with the Russian representatives at trump Tower on June 9.

The problem with the word document and documentation is that the noun and verb form are the same essentially. It gives the wrong impression regarding the veracity of the information.

If it's contemporaneous, I would think it actually adds weight to its veracity. But Like I said, it's a moot point since Papadopoulos verified their account.

If they did that, they should have provided it as evidence at the time. They might have looked stupid if they were wrong...but it would have been higher quality evidence.

Well, they did document it contemporaneously; the cable is electronically dated May 16, and it is evidence. The only evidence it provides is that in May Papadopoulos said Russia had dirt on Hillary. We know for a fact that Don junior said Russia was offering dirt on Hillary in early June. If Papadopoulos was wrong, or they heard him wrong, it wouldn't have been evidence of anything.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

I don't know where you got your definition but legally speaking, an allegation is any assertions made with little or no proof or evidence.

I used the Cambridge dictionary of the English language. It's not much different than the Oxford Dictionary shown here:

allegation​

noun
a public statement that is made without giving proof, accusing somebody of doing something that is wrong or illegal.


This is from the site you provided above:

MORE ABOUT ALLEGATION​

What does allegation mean?​

An allegation is an accusation or claim that something wrong has been done, especially a crime. The word often implies that the thing claimed has not been confirmed or proven or that the claim has been made without proof or before proof is available.
Allegation is the noun form of the verb allege, meaning to claim without proof or before proof is available. Related forms include the adjective alleged and the adverb allegedly.
The word allegation is most commonly used in a legal context, especially in journalism in reports about a person who has been accused of a crime or other wrongdoing but who has not been convicted. Using the word allegation allows journalists to talk about accusations without seeming to presume guilt (and getting sued for libel).


This is from Merriam Webster:
1
: the act of alleging something

2
: a positive assertion especially of misconduct
Some former colleagues have made serious allegations against him.

specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove

3
: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable

Example Sentences​

The police are investigating allegations that the mayor has accepted bribes.
There have been allegations of fraud in the city government.
You're making a serious allegation. Do you have any proof?

The allegation is that the conversation even happened.

It looks to me like you are the one alleging that these two Australian diplomats are lying about having these conversations. Your assertion is unsupportable. For one thing there's nothing illegal or wrong about these two Diplomats reporting having these conversations. And we know that's two witnesses that can corroborate that these conversations happened, and also the events were documented contemporaneously. So, all of that is evidence of the conversations happening. And we also know Papadopoulos verified what the Australians had claimed he said. So, from what I see, the only possible allegation of any wrongdoing out forth in paragraph 5 is against Russia in the form of allegedly trying to compromise one or more people in the Trump campaign.

I disagree.

This was a response to a lot of things I said. What specifically were you disagreeing with?

Were they documented (verb)? That's
a past tense verb in my eyes.

Yes, electronically by cable May 16.

If I wanted a 1st year therapy session I'd ask.

I'm just stating a fact. But now that you mention it, some people just need a hug but would never ask.

It's an allegation until corroborated or evidence is given.

Contemporaneous documentation by two witnesses is evidence of a conversation that happened.

Well that was after they opened a full investigation....which they shouldn't have.

As pertains to opening a full investigation that was a unanimous decision and I don't see Durham saying otherwise. The fact remains that even Durham said they were obligated to investigate it, and the investigation ended up being the Mueller investigation that uncovered the Russian covert activities to help Trump, so it took well over six months anyway.

Look up the word allegation.

I provided the Cambridge dictionary definition in my last post.

allegation

www.law.cornell.edu

Here, Cornell Law School ought to be sufficient. An allegation is a claim of fact not yet proven true. So the allegations of the Australians were indeed mere allegations. They had not been proven true.

The Australians were not making statements pursuant to a legal action, such as filing a complaint or lawsuit, or making allegations/accusations of criminal behavior. They were just saying what they heard.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I said before, it goes on a timeline that shows the Trump campaign knew Russia wanted to help Trump and hurt the Hillary campaign before the Hillary campaign confirmed it was Russia that hacked the DNC. The Don junior email June 3, the Trump Tower meeting June 9, Crowd strike publication June 14.

Again, everyone suspected Russia. It was all over the news. If everyone in the media is saying it was Russia, there's nothing about the timeline that helps your argument.

It wouldn't even matter if it were true that they were bias.

Of course it matters.

Papadopoulos verified their accounts.

You have access to his sealed testimony?

And later Don junior verified their accounts.

Don Jr was also in the bar with the Australians and Papadopoulos?

This bar get more crowded by the minute.

Papadopoulos stated he had heard that Russia had dirt on Hillary in early May according to Mueller, Horowitz, and Durham.

According to the Australians.

That much was already partly corroborated at the time the Australians came forward with the raw information,

Corroborated by what? The media was saying that the Russians were being the hacking in Hillary's campaign. What does an Australian saying he heard something similar in a London bar "corroborate"?

because the FBI were already in a criminal investigation into Russian hacking of the DNC at the time, and they already knew that the spear phishing operations had taken place in March and May.

Right and so did the media as a result.

This is from the Durham report: "Specifically, during his first interview with the Crossfire Hurricane Agents on January 27, 2017, Papadopoulos told the Agents about an individual associated with a London-based entity who had told him about the Russians having "dirt" on Clinton.

Did he? I heard the account from the FBI was different. What did he lie about then?

Also, don't quote the report unless you are linking the relevant section. I don't trust anyone claiming factual evidence that isn't linking that factual evidence.

This above purportedly happened at the end of April. Don Junior got the email offering dirt in early June, and they met with the Russian representatives at trump Tower on June 9.

And?

If it's contemporaneous,

Now it's "if" it's contemporaneous. You didn't read the report did you?

Well, they did document it contemporaneously; the cable is electronically dated May 16, and it is evidence.

You're saying that the FBI got the info on the 16th?

Or are you saying they got the info later after the dump and it was labeled as if it were written May 16th?

The only evidence it provides is that in May Papadopoulos said Russia had dirt on Hillary.

It alleges he said that.

We know for a fact that Don junior said Russia was offering dirt on Hillary in early June.

Ok.

If Papadopoulos was wrong, or they heard him wrong, it wouldn't have been evidence of anything.

Actually until it's corroborated, it's not evidence of anything.

Allegation is the noun form of the verb allege, meaning to claim without proof or before proof is available. Related forms include the adjective alleged and the adverb allegedly.
The word allegation is most commonly used in a legal context, especially in journalism in reports about a person who has been accused of a crime or other wrongdoing but who has not been convicted. Using the word allegation allows journalists to talk about accusations without seeming to presume guilt (and getting sued for libel).


This is from Merriam Webster:
1
: the act of alleging something

3
: an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable

​

There you go....I cut out the parts that seem to be distracting you.

After all, if you claim they weren't alleging a crime....there wouldn't be any reason to open a full investigation on the Trump campaign. That would be....extremely corrupt.

I'm just stating a fact. But now that you mention it, some people just need a hug but would never ask.

Contemporaneous documentation by two witnesses is evidence of a conversation that happened.

Australians?

As pertains to opening a full investigation that was a unanimous decision and I don't see Durham saying otherwise. The fact remains that even Durham said they were obligated to investigate it, and the investigation ended up being the Mueller investigation that uncovered the Russian covert activities to help Trump, so it took well over six months anyway.

And turned up nothing criminal by Trump’s team.....with the exception of not cooperating with an investigation that shouldn't have happened.

I provided the Cambridge dictionary definition in my last post.

The Australians were not making statements pursuant to a legal action, such as filing a complaint or lawsuit, or making allegations/accusations of criminal behavior. They were just saying what they heard.

That's remarkable, so the Australians hadn't even alleged a crime by Papadopoulos but the FBI opened an entire criminal investigation into the Trump campaign based on their words?

 

[childeye 2]

Again, everyone suspected Russia. It was all over the news. If everyone in the media is saying it was Russia, there's nothing about the timeline that helps your argument.

In my view most everyone probably suspected Russia except Trump, I mean at least publicly, Trump was adamantly against supporting the suggestion Putin wanted him, even though his words showed otherwise. While Crowd Strike forensics pointed to Russia, the Trump campaign was busy denying that anyone could know it was Russia that attacked the DNC, and was even suggesting that the DNC hacked itself.

I'm just establishing the facts. I'm not interested in speculation. I've said this many times already. The facts show that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump and the Trump campaign knew it.

Of course it matters.

What I'm saying is that Don Junior verified that the Russians wanted to help the Trump campaign and hurt Hillary by offering "dirt" on Hillary, and that's why any speculation about bias as an impetus doesn't matter.

You have access to his sealed testimony?

I have access to his testimony about Mifsud and to the Don junior emails as a matter of public record.

Don Jr was also in the bar with the Australians and Papadopoulos?

This bar get more crowded by the minute.

Well, whatever fun we make of it, the fact remains that the Trump campaign knew in early June that Russia was offering dirt on Hillary and wanted to help Trump win, and the meeting at the bar with Papadopoulos happened in May.

According to the Australians.

According to Papadopoulos' testimony.

Corroborated by what?

Corroborated by Crowd Strike and the DNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks.

The media was saying that the Russians were being the hacking in Hillary's campaign. What does an Australian saying he heard something similar in a London bar "corroborate"?

Well, the Crowd Strike forensics in June and the DNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks in July were essentially proving the same sentiment Papadopoulos was purported as mentioning in May.

Right and so did the media as a result.

The crowd strike forensics pointing to Russia were reported by media as being published on June 14, while Papadopoulos testified that he heard Russia had Clinton emails from Mifsud in April, so Papadopoulos was not testifying that he heard it through the media, and he also was not testifying that Mifsud heard it from the media. His testimony conveys that Mifsud heard it from people in Russia that he had just returned from meeting with.

Did he? I heard the account from the FBI was different. What did he lie about then?

Yes, he did. Papadopoulos indicates that he had gotten some dates wrong, and the FBI used that to charge him with lying.

Also, don't quote the report unless you are linking the relevant section. I don't trust anyone claiming factual evidence that isn't linking that factual evidence.

The section was on Papadopoulos, but whatever, since it won't change the fact that the Trump campaign knew in June that Russia wanted Trump to be President and was offering help to the Trump campaign.

And?

And that's the reality. The Trump campaign knew that Russia actively wanted to help the Trump campaign, while simultaneously claiming it was a fake story invented by the Democrats and the media.

Now it's "if" it's contemporaneous. You didn't read the report did you?

The full statement conveys this thought: If it's contemporaneous documentation, I would think it actually adds weight to its veracity. The "IF" is therefore rhetorical about contemporaneous documentation being useful as evidence in general.

You're saying that the FBI got the info on the 16th?

No, I'm saying it was documented on the 16th. The FBI was notified on July 26 according to the official reports.

It alleges he said that.

It alleges he said the same thing he said to the FBI.

Actually until it's corroborated, it's not evidence of anything.

The point is a conversation happened with a Trump campaign official. Paragraph 5 is vague as to what was actually said, but the main sentiment being conveyed by the Australians of Russian interference to help the Trump campaign was already happening and known to be happening.

There you go....I cut out the parts that seem to be distracting you.

It doesn't bother me if you wish to change the dictionary language to support a particular nuance you wish to get across, so long as we understand one another.

After all, if you claim they weren't alleging a crime....there wouldn't be any reason to open a full investigation on the Trump campaign. That would be....extremely corrupt.

Like I said, the crime is Russian interference disseminating stolen documents to help Trump and hurt Hillary, and Paragraph 5 was received by the FBI after the fact of the crime was already in progress. It could not be counted as an allegation of the crime since the proof was already present when they sent it. Durham specifically states that this was the impetus for the Australians bringing forth this information.

I've said this many times now, crossfire hurricane was a counterintelligence investigation opened as a SIM, "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. ". The reasons were given by the FBI as to why it was opened as a full investigation. It's Durhams opinion that it should have started at a lower level based on the policy of trying to avoid using the most intrusive means of surveillance as much as possible. But according to the FBI, the situation of active Russian interference constituted a federal crime of Russian interference already occurring, and the additional threat to National security presented by the possibility of the Trump campaign being compromised demanded that all resources be made available.

In other words, the scenario met the following criteria according to the unanimous agreement of all executive levels of leadership at the FBI and also according to IG Horowitz:
A Full Investigation may be opened based upon an "articulable factual basis" that "reasonably indicates" any one of three defined circumstances exists, including: An activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.

Australians?

Yes, I'm referring to paragraph 5.

And turned up nothing criminal by Trump’s team.....with the exception of not cooperating with an investigation that shouldn't have happened.

Even Durham acknowledged they needed to investigate it. And it didn't turn up nothing criminal. Apart from the indictments of Russian actors, the trail of evidence as pertains to any coordination with the campaign ended with not being able to interview Kilimnik, who was Manafort's contact, and Roger Stone who was indicted for lying about his contact with WikiLeaks.

That's remarkable, so the Australians hadn't even alleged a crime by Papadopoulos but the FBI opened an entire criminal investigation into the Trump campaign based on their words?

I don't find that to be remarkable. But then, I didn't see any allegation of a crime other than Russia possibly trying to compromise the Trump campaign. What's remarkable to me is Durham' willingness to ignore the real circumstances of the crime already underway and insinuate the FBI as opening a full counterintelligence investigation based on political bias.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In my view most everyone probably suspected Russia except Trump, I mean at least publicly, Trump was adamantly against supporting the suggestion Putin wanted him, even though his words showed otherwise.

While Crowd Strike forensics pointed to Russia, the Trump campaign was busy denying that anyone could know it was Russia that attacked the DNC, and was even suggesting that the DNC hacked itself.

Well that suggestion was based off of uncorraborated intel.

Was it irresponsible to make claims about the DNC hacking itself? Sure...that's why you shouldn't go around spreading assumptions based on uncorraborated intel.

Let's hope the FBI learns that soon.

I'm just establishing the facts. I'm not interested in speculation. I've said this many times already. The facts show that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump and the Trump campaign knew it.

So you claim.

What I'm saying is that Don Junior verified that the Russians wanted to help the Trump campaign and hurt Hillary by offering "dirt" on Hillary, and that's why any speculation about bias as an impetus doesn't matter.

I'm well aware of what you believe at this point.

I have access to his testimony about Mifsud and to the Don junior emails as a matter of public record.

You don't have transcripts of those FBI interviews and interrogations lol. Let's not kid each other about the value of the what the FBI makes public these days. After all, they went around trying to squash stories about laptops and classified documents from certain sitting Presidents that aren't a big deal....

Well, whatever fun we make of it, the fact remains that the Trump campaign knew in early June that Russia was offering dirt on Hillary and wanted to help Trump win, and the meeting at the bar with Papadopoulos happened in May.

According to Papadopoulos' testimony.

Corroborated by Crowd Strike and the DNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks.

At this point I'm wondering if you are a PR rep for Crowd Strike or otherwise invested.

Well, the Crowd Strike forensics in June and the DNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks in July were essentially proving the same sentiment Papadopoulos was purported as mentioning in May.

I'm going to be honest, I remember some names of certain private companies, but I don't recall Crowd Strike

The crowd strike forensics pointing to Russia were reported by media as being published on June 14, while Papadopoulos testified that he heard Russia had Clinton emails from Mifsud in April, so Papadopoulos was not testifying that he heard it through the media, and he also was not testifying that Mifsud heard it from the media. His testimony conveys that Mifsud heard it from people in Russia that he had just returned from meeting with.

Congratulations, I've now looked them up. Since all your posts read like a running advertisement for Crowdstrike I'm going to ask just how much stock did you buy in them?

Yes, he did. Papadopoulos indicates that he had gotten some dates wrong, and the FBI used that to charge him with lying.

Nothing underhanded about that. After all, if you can't remember the exact date of casual conversation had months earlier, in boozy London pubs, the FBI definitely should be threatening them with prosecution. Forget about the fact that the FBI assumed, incorrectly, that Misfud had left the country and was impossible to find, forget the fact that he was exactly where he was when they stopped keeping track of him, his home...

The important thing here is they leaned on some former associate of the Trump campaign because of rumors spread by Australian diplomats.

The section was on Papadopoulos, but whatever, since it won't change the fact that the Trump campaign knew in June that Russia wanted Trump to be President and was offering help to the Trump campaign.

Does this matter in some way? Because every presidential election involves a candidate that Putin and Russia prefers for some reason or another.

The same can be said for Australia....or any other nation in practicality.

And that's the reality. The Trump campaign knew that Russia actively wanted to help the Trump campaign, while simultaneously claiming it was a fake story invented by the Democrats and the media.

I'm well aware of what you believe but the bias in favor of the Clinton campaign wasn't only apparent in the agents leading the investigation and handling the intel....but also in the FBI'S abject failure to properly follow procedures, especially in such a sensitive issue, is now a matter of fact, not speculation.

Durham has testified to the matter himself. He's faced accusations of failure and bias but they're hollow to anyone who still has a brain. His task was to examine the investigation of Trump's campaign itself....not secure prosecutions, not absolve Trump of any current allegations. He appears to have done so about as fairly as humanly possible. The best criticism I could find anyone raise against him was his lack of praise for the conviction against Manafort and the discovery of the meeting with the Russians in Trump tower.

The full statement conveys this thought: If it's contemporaneous documentation, I would think it actually adds weight to its veracity. The "IF" is therefore rhetorical about contemporaneous documentation being useful as evidence in general.

I don't know what you've read...I doubt you bothered to read the entire report. It's over 300 pages and rather tedious so I think that's a generally safe assumption. I don't know if you work for Crowdstrike, bought their stock, or whether it's an involuntary tick like we'd see in a person suffering from Tourettes.

Consider the following "ifs" as non rhetorical logical statements....

If the documentation shared with the FBI was shared on the day it was documented contemporaneously....then it's extremely unlikely every news source telling you that it was shared after the email leak has this information incorrect. After all, they would only need to read the report to realize this.

If every left wing news source isn't a complete failure (and I'll concede that's a very real possibility), then it stands to reason that the information was shared with the FBI well after the date of its claimed documentation. It stands to reason that multiple sources both left and right wing have correctly noted the information was shared post email leak.
This would at least account for the FBI's multiple failed attempts to corroborate the intel....but it wouldn't account for them proceeding with a full investigation despite have no real cause.

If this intel was, as you claim, verifiable as documented on the day and time it claims....none of these things make any sense? Why is every news source wrong in their reporting? Why did the FBI waste so much valuable time trying to verify information that would be inevitably verifiable once the Russians leaked the emails? Those things would no longer make any sense.

That's how someone with even basic reasoning skills can see the flaw in your argument. If the intel was verifiably documented on the date you claim....I cannot really explain why every media source seems to claim otherwise....nor can I explain the FBIs multiple and extensive attempts to verify intel that was already verified and corroborated.

I mean, they had an undercover female agent go out drinking with Papadopoulos in the same location as if to recreate the circumstances claimed in the intel. Why? Why bother if the intel was already verified by the actions of the Russians themselves?

It's a cartoonish and arguably worse view of the FBI.

No, I'm saying it was documented on the 16th. The FBI was notified on July 26 according to the official reports.

Right....so for all intents and purposes, this is unverifiable uncorraborated intel.

Not hard to figure that out. You just have to drop your biases.

It alleges he said the same thing he said to the FBI.

The point is a conversation happened with a Trump campaign official.

I think Papadopoulos was either out of the campaign or close to it by then.

Paragraph 5 is vague as to what was actually said, but the main sentiment being conveyed by the Australians of Russian interference to help the Trump campaign was already happening and known to be happening.

And widely reported in the news. That's another problem with the FBI documented by Durham. The constant leaks to news sources. Had they kept the whole thing secret and out of the media....they would have regarded the intel from the Australians as more reliable. Of course, that didn't happen....because the leaks aren't accidental.

It doesn't bother me if you wish to change the dictionary language to support a particular nuance you wish to get across, so long as we understand one another.

Any unverifiable claim is an allegation. If you want to point out that there's no claim of Trump's campaign engaging in any crimes....fine....but that makes it harder to justify the investigation into Trump's campaign.

After all, you're claiming it was primarily based upon this intel from the Australians....which as you say, isn't even alleging a crime lol.

Why was Trump's campaign investigated then?

Like I said, the crime is Russian interference disseminating stolen documents to help Trump and hurt Hillary, and Paragraph 5 was received by the FBI after the fact of the crime was already in progress.

Right...and instead of asking for help with the investigation (simply asking Papadopoulos to sit down with them and share whatever he might know) they began investigating Trump's campaign as if they were involved in a crime.

It could not be counted as an allegation of the crime since the proof was already present when they sent it. Durham specifically states that this was the impetus for the Australians bringing forth this information.

Lol ok....I'm going to explain something to you and I know you won't understand it....but I'm going to try anyway....

Let's say you and me are on a stroll...walking in the woods...and a tree falls in front of us, in plain view, where we both see it.

I say to you "that tree just fell". You say "it sure did" and it appears to have fallen because Russian lumberjacks were in the woods chopping down trees. We can both see this.

I then say to you "by the way, I knew this would happen, because my Greek friend Papadopoulos told me so back in the bar like....weeks ago. He apparently hangs out with some people who know Russian lumberjacks and he told me this was going to happen, and I knew it weeks ago."

Would you be able to tell me what is considered proven in this situation and what information you suspect may be true, may not be true, or may be deliberately misleading, or pure fabrication?

Let's assume that you aren't suffering permanent brain damage, you asked me for evidence that I knew this would happen beforehand....I respond that I have no problem with providing evidence, I go back to the car we left when beginning our walk, and come back down the trail to you with a piece of paper in my hands stating that I knew this would happen cuz my Greek friend Papadopoulos told me so, in a bar, cuz he's loosely associated with Russian lumberjacks and its mysteriously dated May 16th.....which was weeks ago.

You can add that part to the question. I want this analogy to be as spot on as possible.

Now, can you tell me what parts of this incident is proven and unproven?

Take as much time as you need.

I've said this many times now, crossfire hurricane was a counterintelligence investigation opened as a SIM, "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. "

That would be a crime. It would be a crime for a presidential campaign to work with a foreign government to win an election.

It's a crime I would consider almost as bad as a presidential candidate working with our own government to win an election.

The reasons were given by the FBI as to why it was opened as a full investigation. It's Durhams opinion that it should have started at a lower level based on the policy of trying to avoid using the most intrusive means of surveillance as much as possible.

The FBI failed in just about every way we would expect them to succeed. If an investigation fails to turn up anything substantial that's one thing... but we all expect that they aren't working for one party against the other. The agents involved openly admitted to assuming the Trump campaign's guilt, and wanting to end his campaign, long before they had even the slightest evidence to justify those views. What's worse, is without oversight, analysis, or any kind of objectivity....there's no reason to believe it's ended. We're just supposed to believe it's all fixed now.

It's a disgrace. They've stained their reputation permanently in the eyes of many. The FBI doesn't get to choose the president.

But according to the FBI, the situation of active Russian interference constituted a federal crime of Russian interference already occurring, and the additional threat to National security presented by the possibility of the Trump campaign being compromised demanded that all resources be made available.

The possibility? If they treated it as a possibility....and not a forgone conclusion, they wouldn't be in a position where a vast number of the public no longer trusts or believes them.

In other words, the scenario met the following criteria according to the unanimous agreement of all executive levels of leadership at the FBI and also according to IG Horowitz:
A Full Investigation may be opened based upon an "articulable factual basis" that "reasonably indicates" any one of three defined circumstances exists, including: An activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.

Right but here's the problem. Australians saying "Russians want Trump to win" doesn't equate to articulable factual evidence of anything resembling a crime.

In fact, they ended up with nothing more than Russians wanted Trump to win....and it's only a surprise to the FBI or similarly biased groups or individuals.

Yes, I'm referring to paragraph 5.

Even Durham acknowledged they needed to investigate it. And it didn't turn up nothing criminal.

I should hope so...I imagine we could pick anyone and scrutinize their every action, I should imagine we'd find something to charge them for....even if it's just speeding.

Apart from the indictments of Russian actors, the trail of evidence as pertains to any coordination with the campaign ended with not being able to interview Kilimnik, who was Manafort's contact, and Roger Stone who was indicted for lying about his contact with WikiLeaks.

Sure sure....Manafort polling data. It's basically high treason to share the same sort of information the evening news shares. I heard Trump is the actual cause of global warming....

I mean, the white house is leaking classified intel like a faucet, it appears as if Fauci covered up his and likely our involvement in release a pandemic that killed millions, the current president is literally taking bribes or at least was, the FBI appears to be sitting on evidence of corruption, Ukraine has billions in weapons and aid and none of this concerns the left in the slightest. They're worried about "disinformation" aka facts that get in the way of the party narrative....and how they can convince people to stop sharing bad opinions.

At least they got Manafort to stop sharing polling data and in the eyes of the Democratic Party, that's mission accomplished.

I don't find that to be remarkable. But then, I didn't see any allegation of a crime other than Russia possibly trying to compromise the Trump campaign. What's remarkable to me is Durham' willingness to ignore the real circumstances of the crime already underway and insinuate the FBI as opening a full counterintelligence investigation based on political bias.

Which circumstances did he ignore? Be specific. Because I don't see you actually mentioning anything he failed to account for.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't understand the relevance of this video. The Steele dossier had nothing to do with how crossfire hurricane began.

Well that suggestion was based off of uncorraborated intel.

Was it irresponsible to make claims about the DNC hacking itself? Sure...that's why you shouldn't go around spreading assumptions based on uncorraborated intel.

Let's hope the FBI learns that soon.

There wasn't any intel Trump had that suggested the DNC hacked itself. And what assumptions were the FBI going around spreading as you allege? These are just blank assertions.

So you claim.

To claim otherwise is to lie.

I'm well aware of what you believe at this point.

To me this is not about beliefs; this is about reality. You seem to be under the impression that the Trump campaign didn't know Russia wanted to help them and hurt Hillary, which would qualify as a belief according to such imaginings. But I'm stating that as a factual event in reality, that Don junior received an email offering incriminating information from the Russian government that would hurt the Hillary campaign and that he welcomed it. This is not my imagination or belief. Don junior himself admits this as does Trump senior.

Therefore, as I said, to claim otherwise is to lie.

You don't have transcripts of those FBI interviews and interrogations lol. Let's not kid each other about the value of the what the FBI makes public these days. After all, they went around trying to squash stories about laptops and classified documents from certain sitting Presidents that aren't a big deal....

I don't presume to disparage whatever the FBI presents. I prefer to pay close attention so I can also read between the lines. And I don't need the FBI transcripts to evaluate what Papadopoulos himself says. There are the transcripts from the congressional hearing with Papadopoulos, there are tv interviews, and definitive statements found in his book. Papadopoulos obviously felt people were working him.

Congratulations, I've now looked them up. Since all your posts read like a running advertisement for Crowdstrike I'm going to ask just how much stock did you buy in them?

Crowd Strike just is what it is, just like Burger King is what it is. But this is a good question so I'm going to answer assuming that your question is a metaphor for, "How much do you trust Crowd Strike's forensic analysis?"

My answer: It depends; As it stands alone, not much, but it's greater than zero. As verified by the FBI, I give it more credence. The unanimous consensus of all intelligence agencies is that it is Russia and I'd feel stupid to presume to argue against that. But as it stands in view of the factual order of events that preceded and followed the meeting at Trump Tower, I'm convinced that it was Russia and that Crowd Strike and the FBI, and all of the U.S, Intelligence agencies were correct.

Nothing underhanded about that. After all, if you can't remember the exact date of casual conversation had months earlier, in boozy London pubs, the FBI definitely should be threatening them with prosecution. Forget about the fact that the FBI assumed, incorrectly, that Misfud had left the country and was impossible to find, forget the fact that he was exactly where he was when they stopped keeping track of him, his home...

The important thing here is they leaned on some former associate of the Trump campaign because of rumors spread by Australian diplomats.

I grant you that the FBI leaned on him without question, but I also consider that this is geopolitical, and I know there's more here than meets the eye. To say it another way, there is an international war over information/disinformation that is more than the FBI, and the geopolitical events themselves don't actually begin with crossfire hurricane.

Does this matter in some way? Because every presidential election involves a candidate that Putin and Russia prefers for some reason or another.

The same can be said for Australia....or any other nation in practicality.

Well crime and corruption matter in ensuring a fair election, so obviously there's a difference between preferring a candidate, and illegally interfering in an election to influence the outcome in one's favor.

I'm well aware of what you believe but the bias in favor of the Clinton campaign wasn't only apparent in the agents leading the investigation and handling the intel....but also in the FBI'S abject failure to properly follow procedures, especially in such a sensitive issue, is now a matter of fact, not speculation.

To me this isn't about beliefs, it's about reality. Yes, there were Strzok and Lisa Page who clearly disliked Trump, as in they would never vote for him. But that doesn't prove misconduct any more than if an FBI agent who would never vote for Hillary proves misconduct.

I do see that there was a deliberate action on the part of the FBI to put their thumb on the scale when attempting to extend a FISA warrant on Carter Page by altering a document. That is misconduct, but that does not prove that their intentions were not motivated out of valid concerns for National Security. It looks to me like the intelligence community were intent on getting information, and Page and Papadopoulos were a means to that end.

This is from the Durham report:
In April 2016, shortly after Page was named as an advisor to the Trump campaign, the NYFO opened a counterintelligence investigation of him. According to the case agent in the matter ("NYFO Case Agent-1 "), in opening the investigation, the FBI was not so concerned about Page, but rather it was concerned about the Russians reaching out to Page.

Durham has testified to the matter himself. He's faced accusations of failure and bias but they're hollow to anyone who still has a brain. His task was to examine the investigation of Trump's campaign itself....not secure prosecutions, not absolve Trump of any current allegations. He appears to have done so about as fairly as humanly possible. The best criticism I could find anyone raise against him was his lack of praise for the conviction against Manafort and the discovery of the meeting with the Russians in Trump tower.

It was inevitable that Durham would fail to prove a Russian hoax existed that was invented by Hillary, the Democrats and the media simply because it wasn't a hoax invented by Hillary, the Democrats, and the media. That's not a personal criticism. It's the same as if I said that Horowitz failed to show political bias at the heart of the investigation.

The bias I see is in the way Durham writes his report. Durham's report is subjective and suggestive, unlike Horowitz, whose report was objective and definitive.

 

[childeye 2]

Consider the following "ifs" as non rhetorical logical statements....

If the documentation shared with the FBI was shared on the day it was documented contemporaneously....then it's extremely unlikely every news source telling you that it was shared after the email leak has this information incorrect. After all, they would only need to read the report to realize this.

The meaning of contemporaneous documentation I am using in my reasoning:

Contemporaneous file notes are documentary evidence of direct oral contact pertaining to the facts of a conversation, noted as soon as practicable after a conversation has taken place.

These are the facts of the events as told by Durham, not me.

This is from the Durham report:
"Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213

Above is the date the raw information was documented, May16, 2016. It's described as a "cable" (I take that to mean a cablegram of some sort). It's most likely an internal Australian government closed system of communication that documents the date and time it was sent between Australian government agencies.

Because elsewhere the Durham reports states that the conversations with Papadopoulos were documented contemporaneously in some other form prior to that date.

From the Durham report:
The Australian account reflects that two meetings of a casual nature took place with Papadopoulos. 215 These meetings were documented by Downer on May 11, 2016 and by Australian Diplomat-I later in the month.
--------------------------------------------
Paragraph 5 was received by the FBI on July 28, 2016.

From the Durham report:
As set forth in greater detail in Section IV.A.3 .b, before the initial receipt by FBI Headquarters of information from Australia on July 28, 2016

Paragraph 5 was given to the FBI because of the public release of hacked DNC emails.

From the Durham report:
The Australian diplomats would later inform the FBI, and subsequently the Office, that the impetus for passing the Paragraph Five information in late-July was the public release by WikiLeaks ( on July 22, 2016) of email communications that had been hacked from the DNC servers.
---------------------------------------------
If you're suggesting that the conversation with Mifsud and the conversation with the Australians were orchestrated by the same entity as a form of spy craft, that's plausible. But it doesn't change the fact that the Trump campaign met with Russian agents at Trump Tower to get "dirt" on Hillary in June and therefore knew Russia wanted to help them and hurt Hillary.

If every left wing news source isn't a complete failure (and I'll concede that's a very real possibility), then it stands to reason that the information was shared with the FBI well after the date of its claimed documentation. It stands to reason that multiple sources both left and right wing have correctly noted the information was shared post email leak.
This would at least account for the FBI's multiple failed attempts to corroborate the intel....but it wouldn't account for them proceeding with a full investigation despite have no real cause.

Of course, the raw information was shared with the FBI over two months after the conversations. To be clear, the raw information recounts that in early May Papadopoulos was suggesting "the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama)".


By the time the FBI received the raw information on July 28, the part that claims Russia could assist the Trump campaign with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Clinton was already being corroborated, because it was happening. The part of the raw information that the FBI still didn't know about was whether the Trump campaign or associates were made aware of these planned Russian activities in early May.

If this intel was, as you claim, verifiable as documented on the day and time it claims....none of these things make any sense? Why is every news source wrong in their reporting? Why did the FBI waste so much valuable time trying to verify information that would be inevitably verifiable once the Russians leaked the emails? Those things would no longer make any sense.

You need to understand that unlike some "news" sources, I'm parsing the semantics between what is verified and what is unknown in paragraph 5.


The cable is most likely an internal Australian government communication between Australian government agencies that occurred on May 16. It was not a cable sent to the FBI on May 16. The raw information (paragraph 5) suggests Russia intends to assist the Trump campaign by releasing information that would hurt Hillary.

The term "verify" needs to be qualified. So, when I say it was verified as in "documented", I mean the cable recorded the date and time it was sent (the date and time of the internal communique between Australian government agencies was verified/documented as conversations that took place).

But when I say that part of the raw information (paragraph 5) was already "verified" or "corroborated" when it was received by the FBI, I'm now referring to the events already happening at the time it was received by the FBI, that are corroborating the parts of the raw information that are congruent with those events happening at that time.

Because at that time, July 28, it was already clear that Russia was interfering and giving assistance to the Trump campaign by leaking documents to hurt Hillary. So that much of the raw information was already verified and corroborated. It's noteworthy that, unlike Horowitz, Durham does not parse these semantics and asserts that the entirety of the raw information is unverified and uncorroborated.

What the FBI says it had a duty to find out, was whether the Trump campaign was witting and/or coordinating with Russia, because the raw information indicates that at least Papadopoulos heard something about the Russian interference in early May. That part of whether the Trump campaign was aware of Russian activities was an "unknown/unclear" according to Paragraph 5, which is why the FBI needed to investigate so as to find out.

That's how someone with even basic reasoning skills can see the flaw in your argument. If the intel was verifiably documented on the date you claim....I cannot really explain why every media source seems to claim otherwise....nor can I explain the FBIs multiple and extensive attempts to verify intel that was already verified and corroborated.

I mean, they had an undercover female agent go out drinking with Papadopoulos in the same location as if to recreate the circumstances claimed in the intel. Why? Why bother if the intel was already verified by the actions of the Russians themselves?

It's a cartoonish and arguably worse view of the FBI.

Why bother with investigating? Because only the part of the raw information about Russia releasing documents anonymously to hurt Hillary was verified by the events. But the part of the raw information that was articulated as "unclear" required more information.

To me the key part that is unknown/unclear should be described as, it was unknown whether associates of the Trump campaign were aware that Russia covertly wanted to help Trump and hurt Hillary, and/or whether they might be cooperating or coordinating in some way.

Right....so for all intents and purposes, this is unverifiable uncorraborated intel.

Not hard to figure that out. You just have to drop your biases.

What exactly is unverifiable in Paragraph 5? And what exactly is uncorroborated intel in Paragraph 5? Because those are two different meanings. We need to consider why Durham uses the term "unevaluated".

After all, this is about conversations in early May conveying Russian intentions to help the Trump campaign by releasing information to hurt Hillary, and those intentions were actively underway in July when the FBI were made aware of the conversations.

Moreover, it cannot be said that Paragraph 5 states nor intends to imply that the Trump team was cooperating or coordinating with Russia. In fact, it stipulates that it is unknown, or it's "unclear".

True that about dropping one's bias; We should lose any bias so as to be objective. That's why I'm just parsing the existing semantics as to what parts of the raw information were already verified when it was received, and what part was yet unknown. I'm evaluating the raw information.

I think Papadopoulos was either out of the campaign or close to it by then.

I don't think he was a player in any Russian interference and Paragraph 5 intimates that same sentiment. It looks to me like he was caught up in the events

And widely reported in the news. That's another problem with the FBI documented by Durham. The constant leaks to news sources. Had they kept the whole thing secret and out of the media....they would have regarded the intel from the Australians as more reliable. Of course, that didn't happen....because the leaks aren't accidental.

The FBI is just where the rubber meets the road domestically so to speak. Any intentional leaks are probably not coming from the FBI but some sub-section of another agency or perhaps even a foreign entity.

I don't know what you mean about regarding the intel of the Australians as more reliable. Who is "they" in your fourth sentence? Because if it was in some respects a geopolitical joint counter-intelligence operation, I would think it's as reliable as they intend it to be (The Australians said it was intentionally vague).

Any unverifiable claim is an allegation. If you want to point out that there's no claim of Trump's campaign engaging in any crimes....fine....but that makes it harder to justify the investigation into Trump's campaign.

After all, you're claiming it was primarily based upon this intel from the Australians....which as you say, isn't even alleging a crime lol.

Why was Trump's campaign investigated then?

An "unverified" claim could count as an allegation. You used the term "unverifiable", and an allegation is not necessarily unverifiable.

So "unverifiable" has a different meaning than "unverified". I don't even use the term allegation concerning paragraph 5 because it's misleading as to implying there was a particular assertion that was unproven.

I'm not claiming the investigation was primarily based on paragraph 5 from the Australians. I'm just reiterating what we are told in the Durham report. The Durham report cites the FBI commenting that paragraph 5 was a tipping point, which implies it was not the primary cause but rather crossing a certain line or threshold.

And this is why the term allegation is misleading, because it causes people to think the reasons that led to the counter-intelligence operation opening begins with the Australians, the FBI and the crossfire hurricane investigation alone. In other words, it seems to me that the semantics show that the intelligence community was already deep in a counter-intelligence operation geopolitically, and Trump running for President to reset American foreign policy in favor of Russia has more likely been under scrutiny for way longer than the period being investigated by Durham.

Right...and instead of asking for help with the investigation (simply asking Papadopoulos to sit down with them and share whatever he might know) they began investigating Trump's campaign as if they were involved in a crime.

The crime from a counter-intelligence perspective is Russian interference to get Trump elected. The difficulty with interpreting spy craft is that we can't tell if Mifsud was a Russian working to compromise someone in the campaign, or if Mifsud is western intelligence acting as a Russian working to compromise the campaign. The crime was already happening, so I would say the FBI began investigating to see first if the Trump campaign was aware, and secondly to see if they were involved and if so, to what extent.

From the Durham report:
Similarly, General Counsel Baker advised that there was some limited discussion about providing a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign regarding the Papadopoulos information; however, in his words, there was also the thought that "why hasn't anyone from the Trump campaign reported this information to the FBI?" Baker advised the FBI felt it did not know to whom in the Trump campaign it could provide a defensive briefing as there was uncertainty about who could be trusted with the information. Additionally, there was some concern about tipping off the Russians if they became aware the FBI had learned of its scheme through a briefing provided to the Trump campaign. Baker advised the FBI did not wish to "mess up" the political process by going overt with its investigation.

Right...and instead of asking for help with the investigation (simply asking Papadopoulos to sit down with them and share whatever he might know) they began investigating Trump's campaign as if they were involved in a crime.

The crime from a counter-intelligence perspective is Russian interference to get Trump elected. The difficulty with interpreting spy craft is that we can't tell if Mifsud was a Russian working to compromise someone in the campaign, or if Mifsud is western intelligence acting as a Russian working to compromise the campaign. The crime was already happening, so I would imagine the FBI would first be watching to see how the Trump campaign would react to the news that Russia was actively interfering to help them win. Secondary to that would be looking for signs they were cooperative towards the Russians and if so, to what extent.

From the Durham report:
Similarly, General Counsel Baker advised that there was some limited discussion about providing a defensive briefing to the Trump campaign regarding the Papadopoulos information; however, in his words, there was also the thought that "why hasn't anyone from the Trump campaign reported this information to the FBI?" Baker advised the FBI felt it did not know to whom in the Trump campaign it could provide a defensive briefing as there was uncertainty about who could be trusted with the information. Additionally, there was some concern about tipping off the Russians if they became aware the FBI had learned of its scheme through a briefing provided to the Trump campaign. Baker advised the FBI did not wish to "mess up" the political process by going overt with its investigation.

Lol ok....I'm going to explain something to you and I know you won't understand it....but I'm going to try anyway....

Let's say you and me are on a stroll...walking in the woods...and a tree falls in front of us, in plain view, where we both see it.

I say to you "that tree just fell". You say "it sure did" and it appears to have fallen because Russian lumberjacks were in the woods chopping down trees. We can both see this.

I then say to you "by the way, I knew this would happen, because my Greek friend Papadopoulos told me so back in the bar like....weeks ago. He apparently hangs out with some people who know Russian lumberjacks and he told me this was going to happen, and I knew it weeks ago."

Would you be able to tell me what is considered proven in this situation and what information you suspect may be true, may not be true, or may be deliberately misleading, or pure fabrication?

Let's assume that you aren't suffering permanent brain damage, you asked me for evidence that I knew this would happen beforehand....I respond that I have no problem with providing evidence, I go back to the car we left when beginning our walk, and come back down the trail to you with a piece of paper in my hands stating that I knew this would happen cuz my Greek friend Papadopoulos told me so, in a bar, cuz he's loosely associated with Russian lumberjacks and its mysteriously dated May 16th.....which was weeks ago.

You can add that part to the question. I want this analogy to be as spot on as possible.

Now, can you tell me what parts of this incident is proven and unproven?

Take as much time as you need.

It's a poor analogy given the fact that an internal cable sent between government agencies would be recorded as to what time and date it was sent. It's not comparable to coming back from a car with a piece of paper with a date written on it that could have been written while sitting in the car.

 

[childeye 2]

That would be a crime. It would be a crime for a presidential campaign to work with a foreign government to win an election.

Thank you for qualifying what you mean by "that would be a crime". Papadopoulos said the same thing when talked to. Inclusive to that, it's a crime for a foreign adversary to interfere in our election process period, yet Papadopoulos didn't inform the FBI when he was told by Mifsud that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails.

It's a crime I would consider almost as bad as a presidential candidate working with our own government to win an election.

Reminds me of the fake elector's scheme on January 6.

The FBI failed in just about every way we would expect them to succeed. If an investigation fails to turn up anything substantial that's one thing... but we all expect that they aren't working for one party against the other. The agents involved openly admitted to assuming the Trump campaign's guilt, and wanting to end his campaign, long before they had even the slightest evidence to justify those views. What's worse, is without oversight, analysis, or any kind of objectivity....there's no reason to believe it's ended. We're just supposed to believe it's all fixed now.

It's a disgrace. They've stained their reputation permanently in the eyes of many. The FBI doesn't get to choose the president.

In principle you're correct. But you can't just believe everything you hear or read in social media either. One reason stated by the FBI for opening a full investigation was to bring in oversight by the DOJ.

The possibility? If they treated it as a possibility....and not a forgone conclusion, they wouldn't be in a position where a vast number of the public no longer trusts or believes them.

This is about national security and it truly is unprecedented in the history of our nation. I believe that in counterintelligence one has to approach that "possibility" with the mindset that calculates strategy based on first contemplating the worst-case scenario, and then seek to defend against that possibility. Preparing for the worst, is not the same as a forgone conclusion.

The events show the Trump campaign was being compromised the moment they were offered dirt on Hillary and secretly met with Russian operatives. Trump was publicly claiming no ties with Russia. He was in a compromised position because Putin at any time could reveal the truth and evidence that they had the secret meeting, and Putin could claim anything he wanted to claim about what transpired at that meeting.

Right but here's the problem. Australians saying "Russians want Trump to win" doesn't equate to articulable factual evidence of anything resembling a crime.

This above is not the circumstance nor the activity described by the FBI, nor did the Australians imply "Russians want Trump to win".

The circumstances were that the Russians were actively engaged in the crime of interfering to help Trump and hurt Hillary when the FBI received word from a friendly foreign government that a Trump campaign official suggested two months earlier that, "Russia wants to help Trump win".

This was the circumstance and activity that was an articulable factual basis indicating a federal crime and a threat to National security:

In fact, they ended up with nothing more than Russians wanted Trump to win....and it's only a surprise to the FBI or similarly biased groups or individuals.

We not only found out that Russians wanted Trump to win, we also found out how they actively interfered to help Trump and hurt Hillary. We also ended up with exposing the Russian tactics for the American people to understand how easily we were manipulated. We ended up indicting many Russian actors and even convicting Nixon's old man Roger stone for not revealing his contact with WikiLeaks, woohoo. It was an adventure, hopefully we learned something.

I should hope so...I imagine we could pick anyone and scrutinize their every action, I should imagine we'd find something to charge them for....even if it's just speeding.

Sure sure....Manafort polling data. It's basically high treason to share the same sort of information the evening news shares. I heard Trump is the actual cause of global warming....

I don't think internal polling data is shared on the evening news. It's expensive and highly valued by a campaign. I don't think a campaign would want their counterparts to learn of the intricacies of the people they intend to target. Why release it and allow the other campaign to strategize around it?

Go ahead, knock yourself out all you want, but it's still evidence of coordinating with Russia. We should ask why would Manafort send internal polling data to Russia? It's useful for targeting certain voters with specific messaging.

I mean, the white house is leaking classified intel like a faucet, it appears as if Fauci covered up his and likely our involvement in release a pandemic that killed millions, the current president is literally taking bribes or at least was, the FBI appears to be sitting on evidence of corruption, Ukraine has billions in weapons and aid and none of this concerns the left in the slightest. They're worried about "disinformation" aka facts that get in the way of the party narrative....and how they can convince people to stop sharing bad opinions.

At least they got Manafort to stop sharing polling data and in the eyes of the Democratic Party, that's mission accomplished.

That's right, let it all out, it's going to be okay. We all die eventually anyway but the good news is Love lives on. Time for a hug.

 

[childeye 2]

Which circumstances did he ignore? Be specific. Because I don't see you actually mentioning anything he failed to account for.

What I'm referring to is Durham's presentation of the opening of crossfire Hurricane. It lacks context in terms of the events that were happening when the raw information was received and therefore fails to show any sense of urgency as pertains to the situation. We will find some descriptions in his report that describe the situation in the words of actual FBI agents, but they are subtextual and marginalized. Instead, it's written in a way that subjectively suggests to the reader that the FBI opened the investigation motivated by political bias and it lays out dubious criticisms of what they should have done or could have done had they not been in such a hurry. I will also provide a comparison to the Horowitz report which I find to be the more objective.



The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Durham

As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately.22 Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. 23

(Note: In bold above: Durham in his second sentence wasted no time in insinuating political bias as a possible motive. In conjunction with the first sentence, it reads like the leadership of the FBI were eager to get Trump)

The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)

(Note: In bold above: The way Durham writes this it comes across, at least to me, as if Durham is criticizing the FBI for not conducting a "significant" review of its own intelligence databases before opening. I note that "Significant" is relative and arbitrary. No mention is made that the FBI is already investigating Russian hacking and disseminating of stolen documents at the time, corroborating at least that much of the raw information. It also fails to mention that in the opening EC crossfire Hurricane is commissioned to find out if specific associates of the Trump campaign were aware/witting of these Russian activities in May. The EC logically proceeds from there to then determine if they were coordinating. To reiterate, Durham feels the FBI should have checked their own database for information about whether the Trump campaign knew about the hacking and releasing of stolen documents in May, before opening the investigation to see if associates in the Trump campaign knew about the hacking and releasing of stolen documents in May).

collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,

(Note: In bold above: Now Durham claims that had the FBI done all the things above before opening, they would have found nothing about it, acknowledging it would have been a complete waste of time. Moreover, Durham gives some insight as to what "significant review" pertains to. It pertains to finding out there was no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership, which by the way is not even in the EC of the investigation)

nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials. 24

(Note; In bold above: Again, the EC opening is to first find out if members in the campaign are aware of Russian activities to sway an election in their favor. Secondary to that is to determine if any members are cooperating or coordinating with Russia. And Durham's statement that Trump hater Strzok knew the FBI had no information about anyone meeting with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign is not helpful nor purposeful to that end. Yet Durham talks as if because the FBI didn't look hard enough to find they had nothing, they shouldn't have opened the investigation so quickly).
-----------------------------

The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Horowitz

In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks. In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks."

In addition, in late July 2016, Wikileaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its "Hillary Leak Series." By August 2016, the USIC assessed that in the weeks leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections, Russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact or disrupt the elections. In addition to the Russian infiltration of DNC and DCCC computer systems, between March and August 2016, the FBI became aware of numerous attempts to hack into state election systems. These included confirmed access into elements of multiple state or local electoral boards using tactics, techniques, and procedures 49 associated with Russian state-sponsored actors. 163 The FBI learned that Russian efforts also included cyber-enabled scanning and probing of election related infrastructure in several states.

It was in this context that the FBI received information on July 28, 2016, about a conversation between Papadopoulos and an official of a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) in May 2016 during which Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion" from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't understand the relevance of this video. The Steele dossier had nothing to do with how crossfire hurricane began.

The Steele Dossier was used to acquire a FISA warrant. This extremely intrusive tech allows the FBI to pretty much monitor any sort of digital footprint you have and definitely shouldn't be based on a dossier that the FBI knew was ...

1. False.
2. Cooked up by Hillary's campaign.

To do so is essentially a crime, a unnecessary overreach that amounts to abuse of authority. I doubt Trump wants to go after Mueller, or just some FBI agent, or even Barr....there's no money in it. Still, this lying about the justification for the warrant is indeed a crime. It seems unlikely anyone will really pay for it.

There wasn't any intel Trump had that suggested the DNC hacked itself.

That was released later. Quite possibly also bogus. However, to know that....you'd really need to even make an attempt to corroborate it.

And what assumptions were the FBI going around spreading as you allege? These are just blank assertions.

So when a newspaper says "sources close to the investigation" and the investigation is being done by the FBI....who do you think they're talking about? Witnesses? People potentially facing prosecution? Or the FBI??

To claim otherwise is to lie.

No...it just takes a brain and full consideration of the possibilities.

To me this is not about beliefs; this is about reality. You seem to be under the impression that the Trump campaign didn't know Russia wanted to help them and hurt Hillary,

The Trump campaign was told that. They didn't know it.

which would qualify as a belief according to such imaginings. But I'm stating that as a factual event in reality, that Don junior received an email offering incriminating information from the Russian government that would hurt the Hillary campaign and that he welcomed it.

And that information can be taken on its face. Or it could be that these aren't Russian contacts but rather FBI or CIA agents looking to frame the campaign. They could be paid agents who are working for HRC to pass bad info to the Trump campaign and once he uses it....expose him for collusion and treason and election tampering and anything else possible.

If you are really so unable to actually consider how tricky that sort of situation is....you don't have any idea what you're talking about and honestly, should quit replying.

It takes someone astonishingly dumb or biased to not be able to consider the full range of possibilities if someone in your campaign is approached by a total stranger offering Russian assistance in winning the election for president of the United States and all you know is they claim to be Russian and have intel...

Who could this stranger be?

If you didn't realize the top 3 suspects include....
1. Actual Russians, could be out for themselves (blackmail) could be working for Putin.
2. FBI and CIA or any other such intel/law enforcement arms of the federal government who may be highly biased.
3. HRC, who is currently under investigation (or formerly) and is trying to throw dirt on you using her career of contacts and supporters in the government.

So that's why, despite what you claim....I don't know what they thought or knew.

This is not my imagination or belief. Don junior himself admits this as does Trump senior.

He admitted to being contacted.

Therefore, as I said, to claim otherwise is to lie.

Not really. I'm just a little smarter than some folks you speak to on here.

I don't presume to disparage whatever the FBI presents.

Well I know they tried to squeeze Papadopoulos. If he eventually tells you the exact thing you want him to after threatening to charge him with crimes he'll never leave federal prison for....despite all attempts to corroborate the info....you might at least consider that they were blind to their own biases.

I prefer to pay close attention so I can also read between the lines.

You're not doing a great job of that.

And I don't need the FBI transcripts to evaluate what Papadopoulos himself says.

You really do. If you're facing crimes related to presidential election interference and the rest of your life behind bars....you might agree to say whatever they want you to if that gets your charges busted down to lying to the FBI. It's not like the FBI has to give you your lawyer. They can dig up some old number of his that no longer works, call up, tell you he was busy, and offer you a dumb public defender more willing to help the FBI than his client.

That why you really want to read those transcripts....like Durham did.

There are the transcripts from the congressional hearing with Papadopoulos, there are tv interviews, and definitive statements found in his book. Papadopoulos obviously felt people were working him.

Obviously. I haven't read his book though....nor do I think he's going to throw criminal accusations at the FBI he cannot prove.

Crowd Strike just is what it is, just like Burger King is what it is. But this is a good question so I'm going to answer assuming that your question is a metaphor for, "How much do you trust Crowd Strike's forensic analysis?"

I don't. Unfortunately, some of these small intel analysts are former CIA and some are current CIA cutouts. If I can look at their entire career from college to today, I'd probably trust them if they don't have any unexplained periods of time they didn't work.

My answer: It depends; As it stands alone, not much, but it's greater than zero. As verified by the FBI, I give it more credence. The unanimous consensus of all intelligence agencies is that it is Russia and I'd feel stupid to presume to argue against that. But as it stands in view of the factual order of events that preceded and followed the meeting at Trump Tower, I'm convinced that it was Russia and Crowd Strike and the FBI, and all of the U.S, Intelligence agencies were correct.

I probably would have said the same. Unfortunately, a guy who wrote a letter throwing dirt on a particular laptop that later turned out to be completely legit has his own small business that he hires a lot of former associates who also signed that letter....for the expressed purpose of helping the Biden campaign.

I'll give you one guess on what that letter writer's name is, what his business does, and where he used to work (hint, despite writing articles and contributing to the WaPo, that's not the employer I'm talking about).

Once you figure out, you'll probably understand why I have a little less confidence than yourself.

I grant you that the FBI leaned on him without question, but I also consider that this is geopolitical, and I know there's more here than meets the eye. To say it another way, there is an international war over information/disinformation that is more than the FBI, and the geopolitical events themselves don't actually begin with crossfire hurricane.

1. That's exactly why the FBI should have done this by the books and held multiple independent unbiased reviews of the intel.
2. Since they didn't do #1 and in fact, violated policy and procedures in likely multiple instances, they probably should be gutted and rebuilt.

Consider that if the FBI goes to Facebook, Twitter, or tries to circulate a letter to any news organization with any integrity, and claim Russian disinformation....who would be dumb enough to believe them? I'd tell the agent to provide the full extent of evidence and I don't care if it's confidential. Then he's going to present it to me....and I'm recording the whole meeting. If he's not prepared to lose his job and do hard time....he won't be showing up again.

Well crime and corruption matter in ensuring a fair election, so obviously there's a difference between preferring a candidate, and illegally interfering in an election to influence the outcome in one's favor.

See the first part of this reply and it's relation to your above statement.

The FISA warrant....based on intel that wasn't corroborated and in fact, was extremely doubtful since they knew it came from HRC, represents a crime. Or to put it another way....because he was biased, Strzok acted like an idiot and kicked off a full investigation that broke a lot of policies and was a comedy of errors. I don't know if Strzok was also the brainless moron who had applied for the FISA warrant but if he was....his biased eventually led to a crime. You can't lie on those applications. If he didn't get it approved on basically nothing....then he lied. If he included the fact that all the intel was highly suspicious and extremely unreliable, and still got the warrant, then there's a problem in the application process.

Either way, I don't think we need to wonder about the possibility of the FBI being entirely corrupted. They're out there stalling IRS investigators while hiding evidence for Biden....who they know is corrupt. They're holding the evidence for that.

To me this isn't about beliefs, it's about reality. Yes, there were Strzok and Lisa Page who clearly disliked Trump, as in they would never vote for him. But that doesn't prove misconduct any more than if an FBI agent who would never vote for Hillary proves misconduct.

We have proof of misconduct. See the beginning of the post. They've been firing agents suspected of being biased towards Trump. It's been a literal purge attempt. This makes it easier to hide their corruption but it's a big agency and you can't possibly get everyone so....

More whistles blowing than a referree convention.

I do see that there was a deliberate action on the part of the FBI to put their thumb on the scale when attempting to extend a FISA warrant on Carter Page by altering a document. That is misconduct, but that does not prove that their intentions were not motivated out of valid concerns for National Security. It looks to me like the intelligence community were intent on getting information, and Page and Papadopoulos were a means to that end.

I don't have the warrant. I can't imagine a judge comfortable with signing one on basically nothing. It is evidence of misconduct....but whether it violates only policy (because no laws are passed regarding these warrants) or whether it violates the law, idk. I'd assume it violates some law, even without a law.

Going through someone's entire digital footprint....and monitoring their digital activity, definitely violates this little thing called the 4th amendment if they have no reason to suspect a crime. They had no reason to suspect a crime. So I'm going to guess there's a fourth amendment violation there. That's less of an example of "putting their finger on the scale" and more of a reason to gut the agency of basically everyone who has over 5 years. They're incompetent with the power they have....and entirely corrupt.

This is from the Durham report:
In April 2016, shortly after Page was named as an advisor to the Trump campaign, the NYFO opened a counterintelligence investigation of him. According to the case agent in the matter ("NYFO Case Agent-1 "), in opening the investigation, the FBI was not so concerned about Page, but rather it was concerned about the Russians reaching out to Page.

It was inevitable that Durham would fail to prove a Russian hoax existed that was invented by Hillary,

Huh? They got the warrant or one of the warrant extensions based on uncorraborated intel handed to them by Hillary's lawyer first, who lied about working for Hillary, and then by Hillary who dragged Steele in front of them second...who was being paid for the "intel".

They started the investigation because they're either too biased or too dumb to be trusted. They continued the investigation because of the hoax perpetrated by Hillary. She may not realize it was a hoax (if you're incredibly ignorant) but the dossier was paid for and passed to the FBI by her....so she perpetrated it.

the Democrats and the media simply because it wasn't a hoax invented by Hillary, the Democrats, and the media.

His investigation was into the investigation and whether it was handled properly. That's what he was there to prove. It's not about if Trump was exonerated or whether Hillary was guilty. It's about the FBI and their behavior. Durham did exactly as he should have and that's why it's hard to throw dirt on the report.

The bias I see is in the way Durham writes his report. Durham's report is subjective and suggestive, unlike Horowitz, whose report was objective and definitive.

The bias is your own.

Now that you understand my post which you've replied to here....do I need to bother with the other two? Comey is an idiot....but at least he was honest. He should have found a lead investigator who was uninterested in the election or had a record of handling sensitive investigations without bias....if any are left. Once you find this agent, you make it abundantly clear he handles everything by the book without any goal...and engages in periodically offering up whatever he has for review.

The FBI is a garbage pile at this point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I'm referring to is Durham's presentation of the opening of crossfire Hurricane. It lacks context in terms of the events that were happening when the raw information was received and therefore fails to show any sense of urgency as pertains to the situation. We will find some descriptions in his report that describe the situation in the words of actual FBI agents, but they are subtextual and marginalized. Instead, it's written in a way that subjectively suggests to the reader that the FBI opened the investigation motivated by political bias and it lays out dubious criticisms of what they should have done or could have done had they not been in such a hurry. I will also provide a comparison to the Horowitz report which I find to be the more objective.



The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Durham

As set forth in greater detail in Section IV, the record in this matter reflects that upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In particular, at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately.22 Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. 23

(Note: In bold above: Durham in his second sentence wasted no time in insinuating political bias as a possible motive. In conjunction with the first sentence, it reads like the leadership of the FBI were eager to get Trump)

The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)

(Note: In bold above: The way Durham writes this it comes across, at least to me, as if Durham is criticizing the FBI for not conducting a "significant" review of its own intelligence databases before opening. I note that "Significant" is relative and arbitrary. No mention is made that the FBI is already investigating Russian hacking and disseminating of stolen documents at the time, corroborating at least that much of the raw information. It also fails to mention that in the opening EC crossfire Hurricane is commissioned to find out if specific associates of the Trump campaign were aware/witting of these Russian activities in May. It logically proceeds from there to then determine if they were coordinating. To reiterate, Durham feels the FBI should have checked their own database for information about whether the Trump campaign knew about the hacking and releasing of stolen documents in May, before opening the investigation to see if associates in the Trump campaign knew about the hacking and releasing of stolen documents in May).

collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,

(Note: In bold above: Now Durham claims that had the FBI done all the things above before opening, they would have found nothing about it. A complete waste of time. Moreover, Durham gives some insight as to what "significant review" pertains to. It pertains to finding out there was no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership, which by the way is not even in the EC of the investigation)

nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March 2017 show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials. 24

(Note; In bold above: Again, the EC opening is to first find out if members in the campaign are aware of Russian activities to sway an election in their favor. Secondary to that is to determine if any members are cooperating or coordinating with Russia. And durham's stating that Trump hater Strzok knew the FBI had no information about anyone meeting with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign is not purposeful to that end. Yet Durham talks as if because the FBI didn't look hard enough to find they had nothing, they shouldn't have opened the investigation so quickly).
-----------------------------

The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Horowitz

In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks. In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks."

In addition, in late July 2016, Wikileaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its "Hillary Leak Series." By August 2016, the USIC assessed that in the weeks leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections, Russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact or disrupt the elections. In addition to the Russian infiltration of DNC and DCCC computer systems, between March and August 2016, the FBI became aware of numerous attempts to hack into state election systems. These included confirmed access into elements of multiple state or local electoral boards using tactics, techniques, and procedures 49 associated with Russian state-sponsored actors. 163 The FBI learned that Russian efforts also included cyber-enabled scanning and probing of election related infrastructure in several states.

OK. You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. This will be short.

The bolded sections you highlighted.


Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)

Along with...


collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,

Refers to how the FBI is supposed to handle intel and its evaluation before opening a full investigation under these or similar circumstances.

You're criticism of his use of the word 'significant" is invalid....as it's almost certainly coming word for word from the FBI's own policy as explained in whatever guidelines set out in their procedural guidelines in Sections IV.A.3.b and c.

You keep talking about how they had already been investigating the Russians hacking Hillary as if that somehow means that they can just abandon their own rules, responsibilities, and procedures....when opening a completely different investigation into a candidate running for President.

They can't....nor should they....because a lot of dumb people out there not only believe the president is still guilty, but the constant leaking of this onerous investigation was nothing more than an attempt to ruin any reelection attempts. It's not Durham's choice to use the word significant....and the other investigation into Russian disinformation doesn't matter. Obviously, it would be smart to frequently meet the agents running that investigation and compare intel....but that's it. The one investigation wasn't merely expanded to include Trump. A completely separate investigation into any possible criminal actions of the Trump campaign was opened. Why? Probably because of the reason I stated earlier. It's a completely different set of crimes....and considerations...and they could reasonably come into evidence of another nation besides Russia involving themselves.


We good now?

 

[stevil]

I don't understand the relevance of this video. The Steele dossier had nothing to do with how crossfire hurricane began.

There are two types of people that keep harping on about the Steele dossier
1. People that exclusively watch right wing propoganda opinion shows, they truley believe that the investigation started with and was entirely based on the Steele Dossier
2. People that know the Steele Dossier came well after the investigation was already under way. They know the Steele dossier was used amongst other evidence to get a warrant to electronically surveil Carter Page and they know that this surveilance turned up nothing. However they keep bring up the Steele Dossier as distraction because they have nothing else better to bring up. It keeps them arguing without having anything of substance to say.

 

[KCfromNC]

OK. You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading.

I'm always skeptical that posts which start out with pointless bluster like this are using the "when you don't have the law or the evidence on your side, pound the table" approach. But that's supposed to be a punch line from a joke, not actual advice on how to convince people.

 

[hislegacy]

If crossfire hurricane had not happened, because as the report states they did not have enough evidence to start it, virtually none of the Mueller fiasco and subsequent political theater would not have happened.

 

[childeye 2]

OK. You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're reading. This will be short.

The bolded sections you highlighted.


Further, the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases, (ii)

Along with...


collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence entities, (iii) interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information it had received or (iv) using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence. Had it done so, again as set out in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russia analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials,

Refers to how the FBI is supposed to handle intel and its evaluation before opening a full investigation under these or similar circumstances.

You're criticism of his use of the word 'significant" is invalid....as it's almost certainly coming word for word from the FBI's own policy as explained in whatever guidelines set out in their procedural guidelines in Sections IV.A.3.b and c.

Respectfully, you're mistaken. "Significant" is not coming word for word from the FBI's own operations guide, the DIOG, nor the AGG. Sections IV.A.3.b and c. are references to sections in the Durham report itself.

The term "significant' is an adjective descriptive of something as noteworthy or meaningful. It's therefore relative and arbitrary, meaning it is subjective, not definitive.

In this application it is clearly a chosen word by Durham to describe his subjective opinion of what he calls the FBI's "review" of the FBI intelligence database. And in Durham's mind, the "review" which supposedly is pursuant to evaluating the raw intelligence should pertain to, and I quote, "information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials", even though the raw information is not even indicative of Trump being involved with any Russian leadership officials, nor does the EC describe any intention to determine if Trump is involved with Russian leadership officials.

You keep talking about how they had already been investigating the Russians hacking Hillary as if that somehow means that they can just abandon their own rules, responsibilities, and procedures....when opening a completely different investigation into a candidate running for President.

I'm just stating the facts concerning the situation the FBI was already in (see Horowitz). They were already investigating Russian infiltration of the DNC servers and the leaking of stolen documents. As shown below, the EC is referencing those Russian activities happening at the time, and there is no question these activities relate to the investigating of Russian interference in the election.

The EC: "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. "

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm always skeptical that posts which start out with pointless bluster like this are using the "when you don't have the law or the evidence on your side, pound the table" approach. But that's supposed to be a punch line from a joke, not actual advice on how to convince people.

Right....that skepticism is probably what kept you from reading the rest of the post which explains it.

 

[childeye 2]

If crossfire hurricane had not happened, because as the report states they did not have enough evidence to start it, virtually none of the Mueller fiasco and subsequent political theater would not have happened.

If Russia hadn't interfered, crossfire hurricane wouldn't have happened. If Trump hadn't fired Comey and tried to get Rosenstein to say it was his idea, Mueller wouldn't have happened. So respectfully, you're mistaken, the Durham report does not state they didn't have enough evidence to start it. On the contrary, it was a unanimous decision that it warranted being looked into and even Durham agreed with that.

All of this is evidence corroborating what Papadopoulos had learned in late April and repeated on May 3:
In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks.

In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks." In addition, in late July 2016, Wikileaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its "Hillary Leak Series."

On July 28, 2016, the FBI received contemporaneous documentation from a friendly foreign government about a conversation occurring on May 3, 2016, between Papadopoulos during which Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion" from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.

Papadopoulos answered this question before the House judiciary committee:

Q: was in April of 2016, Mifsud told you that he had returned from Moscow where he had learned from high-level Russian Government officials that Russia had, quote, "dirt on Clinton," including thousands of emails. Is that accurate?

A: Yeah. So my understanding, my current memory of this meeting was that he invited me to the Andaz Hotel in London by Liverpool Street Station, I guess on April 26, 2016. And at this meeting, he was giddy, you know, like he had something he wanted to get off his chest. And he tells me that the Russians have thousands of Hillary Clinton emails.
---------------------------------------------
McCabe said the FBI viewed the FFG information in the context of Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections in the years and months prior, as well as the FBI's ongoing investigation into the DNC hack by a Russian Intelligence Service (RIS). He also said that when the FBI received the FFG information it was a "tipping point" in terms of opening a counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia's attempts to influence and interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections...

When interviewed by the OIG, FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson stated that it would have been a dereliction of duty had the FBI not opened Crossfire Hurricane. 239 For his part, FBI General Counsel James Baker told the 010 that "[t]he opening of an investigation ... [a]nd doing it quickly is a good thing for oversight because it forces the institution of the FBI and eventually the Department of Justice ... to have appropriate management controls over what's going on.

The evidence the Office reviewed shows that there were internal discussions with FBI Headquarters executives, including the Deputy Director, about the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane. The executives were unanimous in supporting the opening of the investigation and there is no indication that these discussions contemplated anything short of an immediate full investigation, such as an assessment or preliminary investigation, into the meaning, credibility, and underpinnings of the statements attributed to Papadopoulos. 235 The personnel involved in the decision to open a full investigation have stated that they acted within the FBI 's governing principles as set forth in the AGG-Dom and DIOG that required an authorized purpose and an "articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates" that an activity constituting a federal crime or a national security threat "may be" occurring.

 

[KCfromNC]

Right....that skepticism is probably what kept you from reading the rest of the post which explains it.

Leading with obviously empty bluster is a pretty good way to get people to skip over a post. I mean, if it starts off that pointless, why waste any more time? This isn't a job.

 

[hislegacy]

If Russia hadn't interfered, crossfire hurricane wouldn't have happened. If Trump hadn't fired Comey and tried to get Rosenstein to say it was his idea, Mueller wouldn't have happened. So respectfully, you're mistaken, the Durham report does not state they didn't have enough evidence to start it. On the contrary, it was a unanimous decision that it warranted being looked into and even Durham agreed with that.

All of this is evidence corroborating what Papadopoulos had learned in late April and repeated on May 3:
In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks.

In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas "Guccifer 2.0" and "DCLeaks." In addition, in late July 2016, Wikileaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its "Hillary Leak Series."

On July 28, 2016, the FBI received contemporaneous documentation from a friendly foreign government about a conversation occurring on May 3, 2016, between Papadopoulos during which Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion" from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama.

Papadopoulos answered this question before the House judiciary committee:

Q: was in April of 2016, Mifsud told you that he had returned from Moscow where he had learned from high-level Russian Government officials that Russia had, quote, "dirt on Clinton," including thousands of emails. Is that accurate?

A: Yeah. So my understanding, my current memory of this meeting was that he invited me to the Andaz Hotel in London by Liverpool Street Station, I guess on April 26, 2016. And at this meeting, he was giddy, you know, like he had something he wanted to get off his chest. And he tells me that the Russians have thousands of Hillary Clinton emails.
---------------------------------------------
McCabe said the FBI viewed the FFG information in the context of Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections in the years and months prior, as well as the FBI's ongoing investigation into the DNC hack by a Russian Intelligence Service (RIS). He also said that when the FBI received the FFG information it was a "tipping point" in terms of opening a counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia's attempts to influence and interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections...

When interviewed by the OIG, FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson stated that it would have been a dereliction of duty had the FBI not opened Crossfire Hurricane. 239 For his part, FBI General Counsel James Baker told the 010 that "[t]he opening of an investigation ... [a]nd doing it quickly is a good thing for oversight because it forces the institution of the FBI and eventually the Department of Justice ... to have appropriate management controls over what's going on.

The evidence the Office reviewed shows that there were internal discussions with FBI Headquarters executives, including the Deputy Director, about the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane. The executives were unanimous in supporting the opening of the investigation and there is no indication that these discussions contemplated anything short of an immediate full investigation, such as an assessment or preliminary investigation, into the meaning, credibility, and underpinnings of the statements attributed to Papadopoulos. 235 The personnel involved in the decision to open a full investigation have stated that they acted within the FBI 's governing principles as set forth in the AGG-Dom and DIOG that required an authorized purpose and an "articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates" that an activity constituting a federal crime or a national security threat "may be" occurring.

And yet, Durham said they did not have enough evidence at the time to start an investigation.