Crossfire Hurricane: Political Witch Hunt...

[seer]

Just to be really clear, the FBI investigation began when Australian officials reported to American authorities that a Trump associate had said something that sounded incriminating about his Russian dealings to an Australian diplomat in a bar. It was not a matter of internal US politics sparking an investigation, but an allied nation expressing serious concerns and providing evidence. (Incidentally, another ally, Italy, subsequently reported an issue with Trump during the Durham investigation, and we were told "Durham will look into it" and then it appears he never did... it's mysteriously not in his report)

Are you saying that Durham did not look into the Papadopoulos thing? And you get to spy on a Presidential campaign because of hear say, that was directly denied by Papadopoulos?

FBI opened Trump-Russia probe despite Papadopoulos' denial that said collusion would be 'treason': Durham

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi...treason-durham

[Mountain Man]

? The Durham report found there was sufficient reason to launch a preliminary investigation. They did not know "there was no evidence behind the claims". How could they have known until they investigated? Nor did they find that there was "no evidence".

Just to be really clear, the FBI investigation began when Australian officials reported to American authorities that a Trump associate had said something that sounded incriminating about his Russian dealings to an Australian diplomat in a bar. It was not a matter of internal US politics sparking an investigation, but an allied nation expressing serious concerns and providing evidence. (Incidentally, another ally, Italy, subsequently reported an issue with Trump during the Durham investigation, and we were told "Durham will look into it" and then it appears he never did... it's mysteriously not in his report)

If your main complaint is that the FBI wasted time doing a Trump-Russia investigation (or that subsequently the Trump administration wasted time doing that investigation, as Republican Bill Barr appointed Republican Muller to carry it out), surely you'll find even more fault with Republican politicians for their investigation of the investigators in the Durham report (that found nothing prosecutable) taking longer than the original FBI/Mueller Trump-Russia investigation? And for the Republicans doing eight investigations into Benghazi?

Also worth bearing in mind that the Mueller investigation never exonerated Trump from Russian connections: Trump and all his top people simply refused to talk to Mueller so he wasn't able to properly investigate the subject, and he made clear in his report he viewed that as obstruction of justice.

First of all, the FBI knew there was nothing to the Russian collusion claims because they were part of the con from the very beginning. Remember, they repeatedly and knowingly lied to several judges in order to keep the false investigation going.

Second, Mueller said there was no evidence that Trump had committed a crime. His little quip about "but I can't exonerate him, either" was just Mueller throwing a tantrum and doesn't mean a damn thing, because a man who is never charged with a crime doesn't need to be exonerated.

[Starlight]

Are you saying that Durham did not look into the Papadopoulos thing?

No. Not sure what part of my post you're misunderstanding to ask this question. Maybe the Italy reference?

The main NYT article about the Italy report is under paywall, but here's another outlet directly quoting the NYT piece:

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump....

On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials... unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes. Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry

The results, if any, of that investigation have mysteriously vanished into the void. Durham didn't mention it in his report.

And you get to spy on a Presidential campaign because of hear say, that was directly denied by Papadopoulos?

Not sure what you mean by "spy on a Presidential campaign". They wiretapped some individuals who they had evidence about, that happened to be involved in a Presidential campaign. They weren't collecting information about the campaign in and of itself and passing it on to Hillary's campaign. This wasn't Nixon doing it!

The Australian government reported what they believed was potentially serious criminal wrongdoing to the US government, so the US government investigated. That seems an inherently reasonable initial basis for an investigation. Durham found it was indeed a reasonable basis for an investigation. End of story.

FBI opened Trump-Russia probe despite Papadopoulos' denial that said collusion would be 'treason

So if a suspected criminal says he Totally Didn't Do It, you should definitely take him at his word and immediately completely stop investigating?

[Starlight]

First of all, the FBI knew there was nothing to the Russian collusion claims because they were part of the con from the very beginning. Remember, they repeatedly and knowingly lied to several judges in order to keep the false investigation going.

Your two sentences don't really agree. If they lied to keep it going, that doesn't imply falsehood at the beginning of it.

Also, two investigations now, the Durham one agreeing with the previous Inspector General one, have dealt with that issue of the lie to the judge. They both agreed that it was done by a junior prosecutor out of a desire to cut corners and simply admin, not out of any malice or politics. The junior prosecutor was stood down for a year as punishment IIRC. There was no finding of consistent lies like you are alleging above.

Second, Mueller said there was no evidence that Trump had committed a crime.

Mueller wasn't able to find evidence for or against Trump-Russia collusion because Trump and the key people around him all refused to cooperate with the investigation, and thus he was neither able to exonerate Trump nor find evidence against him. Mueller viewed it as obstruction of justice. Mueller appeared to think his report would be used to impeach Trump for obstruction of justice.

[Sparko]

The Durham hogwash is explained here:

khttps://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/john-durham-final-report-trump-russia-investigation

7md6pv.jpg

[Starlight]

7md6pv.jpg

More like they're rolling on the floor laughing at Republicans.

I have heard multiple liberal commentators literally laugh on air at Republicans for how hard it failed.

[CivilDiscourse]

More like they're rolling on the floor laughing at Republicans.

I have heard multiple liberal commentators literally laugh on air at Republicans for how hard it failed.

Liberals laughing at a report that says that the investigation they hyped up (and then trashed when it didn't get them the results they wanted) should not have even been started?

Say it isn't so.

[Starlight]

Liberals laughing at a report that says that the investigation they hyped up (and then trashed when it didn't get them the results they wanted) should not have even been started?

The Durham report didn't say that.

[CivilDiscourse]

The Durham report didn't say that.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html#:~:text=Special%20counsel%20John%20Durham%20concluded,appointee%20and%20released%20on%20Monday.

Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

More like they're rolling on the floor laughing at Republicans.

I have heard multiple liberal commentators literally laugh on air at Republicans for how hard it failed.

Of course, because they are in denial and never even read the report. They are not going to admit that they were wrong for the last 7 years. This is what is known as "spin" Starlight.

[Starlight]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html#:~:text=Special%20counsel%20John%20Durham%20concluded,appointee%20and%20released%20on%20Monday.

Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.

© Copyright Original Source

That's a bit misleading by CNN in their summary there. Further down in their article you'll find a more detailed explanation that Durham thought they should have opened a "preliminary" investigation first and not gone straight to a "full" investigation, and that he thought the evidence indeed did justify opening an investigation.

[Sparko]

That's a bit misleading by CNN in their summary there. Further down in their article you'll find a more detailed explanation that Durham thought they should have opened a "preliminary" investigation first and not gone straight to a "full" investigation, and that he thought the evidence indeed did justify opening an investigation.

quote from the report please?

[Starlight]

Of course, because they are in denial and never even read the report.

The report is quite long. Few people will read it cover to cover. But the commentators have read the summaries of it that have been provided by those who have read it.

They are not going to admit that they were wrong for the last 7 years.

It seems to me that statement applies to Republicans.

This is what is known as "spin" Starlight.

Spin, or lack of it, is why it's important to choose news sources and commentators carefully.

[Starlight]

quote from the report please?

CD used the CNN article as his evidence, so I used the same CNN article to rebut his claim. I don't need to go to the report.

But fine. I'll google what you apparently can't.

Durham Report:

pg 23. One significant way that the AGG-Dom and the DIOG implement the least intrusive means requirement is by describing four different levels of activity. The first is activity that the FBI may conduct without any formal opening or authorization process and is referred to as "activities authorized prior to opening an assessment."71 The other, more formalized levels of activity are assessment, preliminary investigation, and full investigation. As the level increases, the FBI may use a broader range of techniques... [goes on to describe these 4 levels of investigative seriousness in greater detail, and how they have different timelines, different scopes, and different tools at their disposal]

pg 294-5.
Strzok' s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation.... Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation.

Basically Durham thinks that of the 4 investigative seriousness levels that the FBI uses that they should have opened the investigation with seriousness level 2 or 3 rather than seriousness level 4.

[Sparko]

CD used the CNN article as his evidence, so I used the same CNN article to rebut his claim. I don't need to go to the report.

But fine. I'll google what you apparently can't.

Durham Report:

pg 23. One significant way that the AGG-Dom and the DIOG implement the least intrusive means requirement is by describing four different levels of activity. The first is activity that the FBI may conduct without any formal opening or authorization process and is referred to as "activities authorized prior to opening an assessment."71 The other, more formalized levels of activity are assessment, preliminary investigation, and full investigation. As the level increases, the FBI may use a broader range of techniques... [goes on to describe these 4 levels of investigative seriousness in greater detail, and how they have different timelines, different scopes, and different tools at their disposal]

pg 294-5.
Strzok' s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation.... Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation.

Basically Durham thinks that of the 4 investigative seriousness levels that the FBI uses that they should have opened the investigation with seriousness level 2 or 3 rather than seriousness level 4.

Your words, "thought they should have opened a "preliminary" investigation first and not gone straight to a "full" investigation, and that he thought the evidence indeed did justify opening an investigation." make it sound like he was saying that a full investigation was justified after an initial one. But what he said was while they should have opened a preliminary investigation, they should NOT have opened a full one. In other words, a preliminary investigation would have shown them that there was not enough evidence for a full investigation.

Any accusations can deserve a preliminary investigation. But what Durham found was that there wasn't enough evidence for a full investigation and that the FBI was biased and wrong in pursuing one.