Adam Schiff censured

[childeye 2]

the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read. In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.

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

For what it's worth, I agree with Durham's above statement in bold. But I do not agree with this mischaracterization: Durham said they did not have enough evidence at the time to start an investigation. Notice that Durham's statement does not make any such determination and here's why.

The FBI doesn't need any evidence of collusion to open an investigation into a national security threat. As a national security threat, the FBI were obligated to investigate whether any Trump campaign associates were aware of Russian activities to interfere in the election in early May. Because the fact that a friendly foreign government said that in early May Papadopoulos had suggested that Russia would help Trump by releasing information damaging to Hillary constitutes a legitimate threat to National security.

The standard for opening a full investigation is "an articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that ... [a]n activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security ... is or may be occurring ... and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity.''

 

[KCfromNC]

the proof is in the Durram report which you obviously have not read. In short there never was a basis for the investigation and no evidence of any potential crime.

Wasn't that the report which said that the investigation should have been preliminary based on the level of evidence at the time?

 

[essentialsaltes]

From before it happened, but still hilarious, I think.

 

[disciple Clint]

True enough. If you have, would you care to detail that proof for us here?


If you mean Schiff's censure, the investigation seems to be currently ongoing, after the censure vote.

If you mean Trump's ties to Russia and Russian operatives, the basis for that has been demonstrated. There was no criminal indictment for that, though, just an impeachment while he was still in office. As to the evidence for the impeachment vote, the Senate elected not to view any of it before voting.

If you are continuing to claim that Schiff's statement that there is more than circumstantial evidence of Russian collusion is false, then it's up to you to demonstrate that. Good luck!

-- A2SG, know it's tough to prove a negative, but you made the claim, backing it up is your problem......

very funny, have a nice day

 

[A2SG]

very funny, have a nice day

Thanks for admitting you can't back up your claim. Good to know.

-- A2SG, hope you have a nice day as well....

 

[disciple Clint]

How about agreeing to terms? Otherwise, we're not even discussing the same thing as Adam Schiff. Please note that Mueller does not use the term "collusion".

Mueller specifically writes: “Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

col·lu·sion
NOUN
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others:

co·op·er·ate
[kōˈäpəˌrāt]
VERB
work jointly toward the same end:

co·or·di·nate
VERB
bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony:

Mueller does not use the term "collusion" and he specifically made note of that. Instead, he uses the terms "conspire" and "coordinate". This nuance is probably lost on the general public, but the term "collusion" is about "cooperating" as compared to "coordinating". As pertains to not "coordinating" with the Russian government, please note the qualifier at the end of the following statement "interference activities".

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

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

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

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

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

Again the Durham report makes it clear that not only was not any criminal act but the investigation itself was far from above board.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

For what it's worth, I agree with Durham's above statement in bold. But I do not agree with this mischaracterization: Durham said they did not have enough evidence at the time to start an investigation. Notice that Durham's statement does not make any such determination and here's why.

The FBI doesn't need any evidence of collusion to open an investigation into a national security threat. As a national security threat, the FBI were obligated to investigate whether any Trump campaign associates were aware of Russian activities to interfere in the election in early May. Because the fact that a friendly foreign government said that in early May Papadopoulos had suggested that Russia would help Trump by releasing information damaging to Hillary constitutes a legitimate threat to National security.

The standard for opening a full investigation is "an articulable factual basis for the investigation that reasonably indicates that ... [a]n activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security ... is or may be occurring ... and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity.''

The standard for opening this investigation was a report that was know to be false before the investigation began.

 

[disciple Clint]

Wasn't that the report which said that the investigation should have been preliminary based on the level of evidence at the time?

Since there was no valid evidence there should have been no investigation, that is what the reports said.

 

[disciple Clint]

Thanks for admitting you can't back up your claim. Good to know.

-- A2SG, hope you have a nice day as well....

Thanks for jumping to unwarranted conclusions, the game was getting old but some people just love to play dont they

 

[A2SG]

Thanks for jumping to unwarranted conclusions, the game was getting old but some people just love to play dont they

I asked you to back up your claims.

You couldn't.

No jumping involved.

-- A2SG, not on my part, anyway......

 

[Pommer]

Again the Durham report makes it clear that not only was not any criminal act but the investigation itself was far from above board.

He brought a grand total of two criminal indictments and lost both at trial.
His legal assessments might not be of the highest quality?

 

[KCfromNC]

Since there was no valid evidence there should have been no investigation, that is what the reports said.

Can you quote which page you're getting that from?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since there was no valid evidence there should have been no investigation, that is what the reports said.

That is not what Durham said.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That is not what Durham said.

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

 

[childeye 2]

Again the Durham report makes it clear that not only was not any criminal act but the investigation itself was far from above board

Some people intend to obfuscate. So, you would need to be specific as to what you're referring. But I would guess you're referring to the surveillance application for Carter Page. That's the only thing I see as applicable here. We know it's criminal for Russia to interfere to help Trump.

 

[childeye 2]

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

Since there was no valid evidence there should have been no investigation, that is what the reports said.

Durham doesn't even speak definitively as shown above, so you two are incorrect.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Who cares what 'appears' to be the case? The point is that Durham did not say "there should have been no investigation".

 

[childeye 2]

The standard for opening this investigation was a report that was know to be false before the investigation began.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The standard is written in the FBI policy guide for investigating a national security threat and that is what the FBI followed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

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

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

Crossfire Hurricane was not opened as an investigation into collusion/coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, so a lack of evidence of collusion is irrelevant to the validity of the investigation. Rather, it was opened on the basis of national security concerns raised by the information they received about Russia having damaging information about Clinton and an interest in releasing it, as revealed in a conversation between George Papadopoulos and an Australian diplomat.

An analogy: Let's say you work for the police department. A call comes in from ADT that an alarm was tripped at one of their client locations, so you're sent to investigate. At this point, you're investigating a burglary. When you arrive, you find a broken window, and inside the building, there's a dead body. Now your burglary investigation has turned into homicide. A review of the case would show that - at the commencement of the investigation - you had no actual evidence of a homicide, and yet you ended up investigating a homicide. But you did have evidence of a burglary, which was sufficient to open an investigation. It's just that your burglary investigation led you to evidence of a homicide.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The standard for opening this investigation was a report that was know to be false before the investigation began.

Are you referring to the Steele Dossier?