Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="childeye 2" data-source="post: 77263448" data-attributes="member: 412375"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have access to his testimony about Mifsud and to the Don junior emails as a matter of public record.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>According to Papadopoulos' testimony.</p><p></p><p>Corroborated by Crowd Strike and the DNC emails being leaked by WikiLeaks.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Yes, he did. Papadopoulos indicates that he had gotten some dates wrong, and the FBI used that to charge him with lying.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The full statement conveys this thought:<em> If it's contemporaneous documentation, I would think it actually adds weight to its veracity.</em> The "IF" is therefore rhetorical about contemporaneous documentation being useful as evidence in general.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I'm saying it was documented on the 16th. The FBI was notified on July 26 according to the official reports.</p><p></p><p>It alleges he said the same thing he said to the FBI.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I'm referring to paragraph 5.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="childeye 2, post: 77263448, member: 412375"] 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. 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 have access to his testimony about Mifsud and to the Don junior emails as a matter of public record. 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. 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. 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. Yes, he did. Papadopoulos indicates that he had gotten some dates wrong, and the FBI used that to charge him with lying. 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 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. The full statement conveys this thought:[I] If it's contemporaneous documentation, I would think it actually adds weight to its veracity.[/I] The "IF" is therefore rhetorical about contemporaneous documentation being useful as evidence in general. 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 the same thing he said to the FBI. 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. 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. 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. Yes, I'm referring to paragraph 5. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
John Durham concludes FBI should NOT have investigated Trump
Top
Bottom