Well there's your problem.
Plenty of media sources claiming expert analysis and inside information were claiming it was Russia.
Your assertions about whatever the general public was "aware" of don't mean anything.
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.
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.
You keep saying "documentation" as if the Australians were recording the conversation with Papadopoulos. There's no recording...and therefore, no documentation. That's an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor.
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. Any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction, so allow me to point out the facts here.
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". 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 Australians made a record of their encounter with Papadopoulos which qualifies as contemporaneous documentation of an event. 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
- 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).
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".
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. "
Of course it matters. They charged him with lying to the FBI. That's not conspiring with Russian representatives.
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. 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.
Allegation. No documentation was provided by the Australians.
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. When we believe in a falsehood, it manifests emotions that are not based in reality, which is why so many people are demented.
No documents. Allegations.
If I write a fictional story on paper...that doesn't make it true, even if I claim it is.
Again, it's not an allegation, it's contemporaneous evidence of an encounter and an abstract account of what occurred during that encounter.
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 would have been meaningful if they shared it BEFORE it happened. They didn't though...so it's just an allegation.
This is a fruitless avenue of discussion since it didn't happen that way in reality.
childeye 2 said:
I don't see those documents as an allegation of a crime against Papadopoulos.
Nor do I....those are allegations though...not documentation. 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.
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?
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).
They were running with the same narrative the Hillary campaign ran with.
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.
There wasn't evidence that Russia was involving Trump or that they were in cahoots. That's what you would need to investigate his campaign.
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 entirely possible he's correct. The Russians were claiming to have information about Hillary cooking up the email release to blame Russia and smear Trump. I don't know if that was misinformation or if they had something. I'm sure you remember this...
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.
I think it probably was....did those indictments result in any confessions?
It's certainly a possibility. Turns out our intelligence community isn't so good at keeping secrets or informing thr public about facts.
I'm definitely not claiming that.
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.
That's why they ran multiple attempts to elicit a similar disclosure from Papadopoulos to undercover agents. He didn't. Instead, he vehemently denied Russian involvement and said that it was all lies from the Hillary campaign. That's a rather odd flip flop.
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.
www.reuters.com
www.pbs.org
