John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Respectfully, I read section 4a, and frankly, it doesn't refer to any of those levels of intelligence assessment. I don't know where you're pulling this paragraph from so it's a bit difficult to know if you're quoting it accurately or if it refers to one of the hundreds of citations or addendums in the report...

So why don't you just tell me what page you're pulling that from and I'll take a peek?

The term "significant' is an adjective descriptive of something as noteworthy or meaningful.

He can use a dictionary folks.

It's therefore relative and arbitrary, meaning it is subjective, not definitive.

And let's be honest, it appears as if your accusations of bias on Durham's part hinge entirely on the accuracy of this adjective. Wow.

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.

Is your objection to the adjective "significant" ? Or is it that particular characterization of the investigation?

Because I read the whole pretext to deciding to open full investigation into the Trump campaign (the 3 days they mulled it over) and I agree that the term "significant" is inaccurate and generous.

If he was being accurate he would have wrote...

Prior to opening a full investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to the Russian disinformation efforts, the FBI conducted no assessment of the raw intel they had at all. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. It's as if these clowns forgot how to do their jobs entirely and never considered the importance of following procedures in such a sensitive matter.


By using the term "significant" he gives the impression that perhaps some intel assessment happened at all.

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.

And the RNC servers. They both got hacked.

And we can compare this to how they reacted to finding out about Wiener's laptop.

FBI - "Hey Wiener's laptop seems to have thousands of those missing Clinton emails!"

Strozk- "Let's just ignore that for about 30 days."

FBI- "Hey, some Australian diplomat gave us a rumor about a Trump campaign guy saying the word "Russian" while drunk in a pub."

Strozk- "Who needs evidence when you've got a hunch? Let's open a full investigation immediately! We have to stop Trump!"

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. "

Again, let's be clear....we aren't talking about expanding the investigation into Russian disinformation. We are talking about opening a new and completely separate investigation into the Trump campaign.

If you think that it was justified....based on nothing more than a rumor....then why wasn't an investigation opened up on the Clinton campaign receiving intel from the Russians? She literally handed them a dossier that was put together by someone she employed (Steele) who claimed to be receiving intel from the Russians.

That's a lot more than a rumor.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which of the convictions were for colluding.

Why would you want to change the discussion away from what Donald's employees were convicted for to something that they weren't? Seems like a textbook definition of a distraction.

Just cause they charg d someone with some stuff doesn't make the initial investigation legitimate.

Not by itself, but the subsequent trials and convictions of those people they charged would seem to point in a certain direction.

If I I vestigat d you for murder and I had no legitimate reason for doing so

I'm not sure how making up random stories has much to do with the discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is so laughable. No charges were ever filed.

That's not true. Durham tried his very best to get some of the investigators convicted of, well, anything. It didn't go so well for him, a stark contrast to the Mueller investigation.

 

[stevil]

Which of those people were convicted of colluding with Russia to interfer with the election?

Colluding isn't a crime.

 

[childeye 2]

Respectfully, I read section 4a, and frankly, it doesn't refer to any of those levels of intelligence assessment. I don't know where you're pulling this paragraph from so it's a bit difficult to know if you're quoting it accurately or if it refers to one of the hundreds of citations or addendums in the report...

So why don't you just tell me what page you're pulling that from and I'll take a peek?

I'm pulling it from here:


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

And let's be honest, it appears as if your accusations of bias on Durham's part hinge entirely on the accuracy of this adjective. Wow.

With no disrespect to your honesty, all I did was establish that the term is relative and subjective.

rel·a·tive
[ˈrelədiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. considered in relation or in proportion to something else:

sub·jec·tive
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Contrasted with objective.

Is your objection to the adjective "significant" ? Or is it that particular characterization of the investigation?

Good questions. I don't have any objection to the adjective significant. I want to understand what Durham means to say according to his chosen words. I'm just noting it's his opinion rather than a definitive statement of fact. I'm not claiming he's wrong. I just don't see how a search of the database would be helpful in evaluating the raw information.

Because I read the whole pretext to deciding to open full investigation into the Trump campaign (the 3 days they mulled it over) and I agree that the term "significant" is inaccurate and generous.

If he was being accurate he would have wrote...

Prior to opening a full investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to the Russian disinformation efforts, the FBI conducted no assessment of the raw intel they had at all. Zero. None. Nada. Zilch.

If you want to say they mulled it over for three days, then you could just as well say they assessed the raw information for three days before deciding to investigate. Any cynic operating on bias could also assert the FBI took so long because the raw information was not very compelling.

It's as if these clowns forgot how to do their jobs entirely and never considered the importance of following procedures in such a sensitive matter.

By using the term "significant" he gives the impression that perhaps some intel assessment happened at all.

There's no indication the FBi didn't follow procedures. Durham chooses words to imply as if that is the case without actually stating that's the case. Durham is supposed to report facts not opinions. That's why his report ends up projecting bias.

For example, look at the first half of your version of the statement:
Prior to opening a full investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to the Russian disinformation efforts...
You should not have used "disinformation efforts" when referring to the raw information (the predicate), because you are making an assessment of the raw information that asserts the raw information conveys Russia is spreading disinformation. The raw information doesn't convey that sentiment at all. That's not a factual assessment.

However, hopefully I've shown that we can glean from the EC opening what the FBI assessment was of the raw information:

"this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."

And the RNC servers. They both got hacked.

Hacked by who is relevant to understanding a motive. I know very little about what was actually hacked at the RNC since I've seen no releases.

Again, let's be clear....we aren't talking about expanding the investigation into Russian disinformation. We are talking about opening a new and completely separate investigation into the Trump campaign.

First of all, it's already a mistake to think/say, "expanding the investigation into Russian disinformation". That's simply untrue in thought and word. The investigation currently happening at the time was into the infiltration of the DNC computer system and the leaking of the stolen documents.

By comparison, the raw information is about a report in early May concerning a Trump campaign official purportedly knowing about Russia helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Hillary campaign by releasing information anonymously that would be damaging to Hillary. It was documented contemporaneously and given to the FBI by a friendly foreign government only after learning of the anonymous release of stolen emails meant to damage the Hillary campaign. So, these investigations are interrelated even if it's technically a new avenue of investigation.

If you think that it was justified....based on nothing more than a rumor....then why wasn't an investigation opened up on the Clinton campaign receiving intel from the Russians?

There's a big difference between the Russian government approaching a campaign offering assistance to help beat their opponent in exchange for favorable foreign policy and hiring a firm to conduct opposition research on their opponent. What Papadopoulos said about Russia releasing damaging information anonymously in early May would qualify as rumor when the Australians first heard of it, but after it started happening in reality, it no longer qualifies as rumor.

She literally handed them a dossier that was put together by someone she employed (Steele) who claimed to be receiving intel from the Russians.

That's a lot more than a rumor.

No Hillary didn't literally hand the FBI the Steele dossier. Metaphorically she handed the FBI the Steele dossier.

 

[childeye 2]

Colluding isn't a crime.

Actually, it can be, but not necessarily. For Mueller, collusion was not a legal term of art in federal law.

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n]

NOUN

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

 

[stevil]

Actually, it can be, but not necessarily. To Mueller, collusion was not a legal term of art in federal law.

col·lu·sion
[kəˈlo͞oZH(ə)n]

NOUN

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

Conspiracy is a crime, collusion is not.

 

[childeye 2]

Conspiracy is a crime, collusion is not.

It's always a battle of words and their meanings. You make a fair point. The definition I gave for collusion contains "illegal" cooperation and "conspiracy". That infers collusion can be a crime.

This is Merriam/Webster: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose
This is Oxford: secret agreement especially in order to do something dishonest or to trick people
This is Cambridge: agreement between people to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone
This is Cornell law: Collusion is when two or more parties secretly agree to defraud a third-party of their rights or accomplish an illegal purpose.

It's sometimes amazing what is legal when it comes to politics.
Suffice it to say that in his application Mueller said this: “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.”

So you have a valid point (particular to this topic) according to Mueller.

 

[stevil]

It's always a battle of words and their meanings. You make a fair point. The definition I gave for collusion contains "illegal" cooperation and "conspiracy". That infers collusion can be a crime.

Collusion can be a crime, but in of itself it isn't.

In 2016 the Russians were illegally interferring in the USA presidential election. They hacked Democratic members emails and they took to the internet forums and social media to defame Hillary and promote Donald Trump.

Paul Manafort was on the Trump 2016 election campaign team and he was working with the Russians and sharing internal polling data with them. He was colluding with them.

Also Trump Jr, and Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with the Russians at Trump Tower with the intent to get dirt on Hilary in the lead up to the election. This again was collusion between members of Trumps 2016 election campaign team and the Russians who were illegally interfering in the USA presidential election.

 

[childeye 2]

Collusion can be a crime, but in of itself it isn't.

In 2016 the Russians were illegally interferring in the USA presidential election. They hacked Democratic members emails and they took to the internet forums and social media to defame Hillary and promote Donald Trump.

Paul Manafort was on the Trump 2016 election campaign team and he was working with the Russians and sharing internal polling data with them. He was colluding with them.

Also Trump Jr, and Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with the Russians at Trump Tower with the intent to get dirt on Hilary in the lead up to the election. This again was collusion between members of Trumps 2016 election campaign team and the Russians who were illegally interfering in the USA presidential election.

Adam Schiff said this: “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

[rjs330]

Here's the problem with what you're asking. 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.”

Yes yea we've heard this before. He didn't find any liability of anything regarding Trump coordinating either. Nope still nothing. Still no legitimate investigation. Still nothing found. Still no one charged with anything relating to coordinating, colluding or any other words you want to throw at it.

Nada.

 

[rjs330]

Everything you said above is inaccurate.
Durham didn't ever investigate if there was collusion or coordination.
Durham never said it shouldn't have happened as you claim above.
Durham indicates in his report that he felt the FBI should have first had a preliminary investigation.
Durham never said that Hillary compiled the Steele dossier or colluded with Russia.
Mueller produced 34 indictments.

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.

Right, still nothing. Nothing but innuendo and supposition. Durham said there shouldn't have been an investigation because there want a preliminary one. Turn it any way you like, it still doesn't add up to what you want.

 

[rjs330]

Adam Schiff said this: “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Yes and we can trust everything Schiff says. Extremely reliable source. What!?

 

[rjs330]

Why would you want to change the discussion away from what Donald's employees were convicted for to something that they weren't? Seems like a textbook definition of a distraction.


Not by itself, but the subsequent trials and convictions of those people they charged would seem to point in a certain direction.


I'm not sure how making up random stories has much to do with the discussion.

Okay which of the charges were filed for cooperating with the Russians in an attempt to interfere with the election. What other words would you like to use?

 

[stevil]

Adam Schiff said this: “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence. There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Yip, and for that they censure him. Even though he is absolutely correct.

 

[childeye 2]

Right, still nothing. Nothing but innuendo and supposition. Durham said there shouldn't have been an investigation because there want a preliminary one. Turn it any way you like, it still doesn't add up to what you want.

You're mistaken, I'm just being honest in saying what I can observe with my own eyes, not turning things to add up to what I want. Durham did not state there should have been a preliminary investigation. All Durham said was this: That measured approach does not appear to have been followed with respect to Crossfire Hurricane.

It should be noted that Durham said that in the context of, ...to avoid reputational risk to those being investigated...not because there wasn't a legitimate national security threat. Below is evidence of the national security threat posed by Russia interfering with our Nation's elections, to put in the Whitehouse their preferred candidate.

This is documented evidence, not innuendo or supposition:
Stone indictment
Don junior emails

Since Don junior received the above email offering damaging info on Hillary on June 3, and met with the Russians on June 9, 2016, it's a fact that when giving the following interview Don junior already knows Russia wants to help the Trump campaign and hurt Hillary.

From CNN Jake Tapper July 24, 2016:
DONALD TRUMP JR., SON OF DONALD TRUMP: My pleasure, Jake. Good to be with you.

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 e-mails 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?

[09:30:00]

DONALD 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. 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.

 

[KCfromNC]

Okay which of the charges were filed for cooperating with the Russians in an attempt to interfere with the election. What other words would you like to use?

None. I don't feel any particular need to help out in this failed attempt to distract from the convictions from the Mueller investigation.