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: 77269202" data-attributes="member: 412375"><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em><u>The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Durham </u></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>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 </em><strong><em>Strzok</em></strong><em>, </em><strong><em>at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. </em></strong><em>23</em></p><p></p><p>(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)</p><p></p><p><em>The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, </em><strong><em>the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases</em></strong><em>, (ii)</em></p><p></p><p>(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).</p><p></p><p><em>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. </em><strong><em>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</em></strong> <strong><em>had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials</em></strong><em>,</em></p><p></p><p>(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)</p><p></p><p><em>nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. </em><strong><em>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 </em></strong></p><p></p><p>(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).</p><p>-----------------------------</p><p></p><p><em><u>The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Horowitz</u></em></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong><u><span style="font-size: 18px">It was in this context</span></u></strong> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="childeye 2, post: 77269202, member: 412375"] 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. [I][U]The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Durham [/U] 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 [/I][B][I]Strzok[/I][/B][I], [/I][B][I]at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump. [/I][/B][I]23[/I] (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) [I]The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. Further, [/I][B][I]the FBI did so without (i) any significant review of its own intelligence databases[/I][/B][I], (ii)[/I] (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). [I]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. [/I][B][I]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[/I][/B] [B][I]had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials[/I][/B][I],[/I] (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) [I]nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. [/I][B][I]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 [/I][/B] (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). ----------------------------- [I][U]The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane According to Horowitz[/U][/I] 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. [B][U][SIZE=5]It was in this context[/SIZE][/U][/B] 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. [/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