The Durham Report and The Exposition of The Libbies

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, robosmith said:

WTH are you talking about? It's DIRECT QUOTE from the report.

Which you MIGHT KNOW IF YOU READ IT. LMAO

Oh I read it little one. But I have something you appear to be lacking.

Wisdom and intellect.

Who do you think had to review this and approve its release?

Edited May 16, 2023 by Nationalist

[suds]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

This report does not recommend ANY wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out.

Durham was correct in my opinion...

• Durham likely felt it was beyond the scope of his investigation and should be left up to the Attorney General to decide if any changes to guidelines and policies were to be made.
• And that guidelines and policies are only as good as the 'integrity of those who take the oath' to follow those guidelines and policies.

One thing he is not doing is excusing or exonerating those who lied or denied exculpatory evidence in the course of the Justice Department's investigation. So you found one little tidbit of light in a damning report and decided to pounce on it?  Too funny.

 

 

[robosmith]

45 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Oh I read it little one. But I have something you appear to be lacking.

Wisdom and intellect.

Who do you think had to review this and approve its release?

It wasn't you, so your SPECULATION about what the passage means, means NOTHING, your imagined "wisdom and intellect" notwithstanding. LMAO

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Time out for a mind game. If the US justice department randomly picked out 1 member of congress per year and went after them (including their close associates and families) with the same zeal and tenacity they displayed against Trump for the last 7 years.... what would they uncover? In fact, why not  start with Biden and his close associates and family?

And they’re just picking on poor innocent George Santos, aren’t they?  
Get this straight: Donald Trump is a criminal. If you don’t want to be investigated for conspiring with Russia, do not… repeat: Do Not ask Russia to hack your political opponent’s email on live TV. Got it? 
Also, if you want to avoid a grand jury investigation, do not… repeat: Do Not call the Georgia Secretary of State and tell him to “find” 12,000 votes.  
Also, if you have access to Classified Information… do not take it home, refuse to return it, lie about having it, and then insist that you have an unfettered right to have it.  
 

Also, when shopping in department stores, do not rape women in the dressing room. 
Also, if you are on trial for rape, do not insist under oath that your status as a celebrity gives you the right to grab women’s private parts any time you want. 
 

Got it? Can you manage that? 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

22 minutes ago, suds said:

Durham was correct in my opinion...

• Durham likely felt it was beyond the scope of his investigation and should be left up to the Attorney General to decide if any changes to guidelines and policies were to be made.
• And that guidelines and policies are only as good as the 'integrity of those who take the oath' to follow those guidelines and policies.

One thing he is not doing is excusing or exonerating those who lied or denied exculpatory evidence in the course of the Justice Department's investigation. So you found one little tidbit of light in a damning report and decided to pounce on it?  Too funny.

It's in the executive summary, so it's a PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION of the report, your speculation notwithstanding.

We agree with Durham's report which found that the Crossfire investigation was justified and no criminal conduct.

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's in the executive summary, so it's a PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION of the report, your speculation notwithstanding.

We agree with Durham's report which found that the Crossfire investigation was justified and no criminal conduct.

No criminal conduct in conducting the investigation of Donald Trump.  The investigation itself lead to discovery of plenty of criminal conduct. 

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

No criminal conduct in conducting the investigation of Donald Trump.  The investigation itself lead to discovery of plenty of criminal conduct. 

Of course. Durham's charter was to investigate Crossfire Hurricane.

[suds]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It's in the executive summary, so it's a PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION of the report, your speculation notwithstanding.

We agree with Durham's report which found that the Crossfire investigation was justified and no criminal conduct.

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was justified? In the executive summary under 'The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane' I'm reading things such as 'unevaluated intelligence', being opened without ever having spoken to those who provided the information, no significant review of its own intelligence databases or from other US intelligence agencies, non usage of standard analytical tools typically used by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence, including Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok's 'hostile feelings for Trump'. In addition, the FBI had no information indicating that 'anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials' during the campaign. It then goes on to question why this was so  markedly different from the FBI's actions with respect to other (but) highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign's plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin.

So where is this 'JUSTIFICATION'??

Edited May 17, 2023 by suds

[suds]

57 minutes ago, Rebound said:

And they’re just picking on poor innocent George Santos, aren’t they?  
Get this straight: Donald Trump is a criminal. If you don’t want to be investigated for conspiring with Russia, do not… repeat: Do Not ask Russia to hack your political opponent’s email on live TV. Got it? 
Also, if you want to avoid a grand jury investigation, do not… repeat: Do Not call the Georgia Secretary of State and tell him to “find” 12,000 votes.  
Also, if you have access to Classified Information… do not take it home, refuse to return it, lie about having it, and then insist that you have an unfettered right to have it.  
 

Also, when shopping in department stores, do not rape women in the dressing room. 
Also, if you are on trial for rape, do not insist under oath that your status as a celebrity gives you the right to grab women’s private parts any time you want. 
 

Got it? Can you manage that? 

My bad. Ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer. George Santos was outed by the media and likely Congress felt it had no choice but to investigate. But this Trump thing about asking Russia to find Clinton's missing 30,000 emails is plain stupid. If Trump was really colluding with Russia would he do so on national TV? Or was he just joking around? Removing 'classified information' is now a crime it seems (but only when certain people do it). I honestly think they're planning on writing a book or something and want it as reference material. And I mean Biden would never think of raping a woman (but it did slow down the 'me too' movement to something a bit less radical). We can play this stupid game as long as you want but I'd prefer not to. And btw, does Congress still have that slush fund (funded by taxpayers) to pay off accusers of sexual harassment? Inquisitive minds want to know.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, suds said:

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was justified? In the executive summary under 'The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane' I'm reading things such as 'unevaluated intelligence', being opened without ever having spoken to those who provided the information, no significant review of its own intelligence databases or from other US intelligence agencies, non usage of standard analytical tools typically used by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence, including Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok's 'hostile feelings for Trump'. In addition, the FBI had no information indicating that 'anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials' during the campaign. It then goes on to question why this was so  markedly different from the FBI's actions with respect to other (but) highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign's plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin.

So where is this 'JUSTIFICATION'??

Quote

This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out.

If Durham believed the investigation was not justified, he would not have stated ^this. Nowhere does the report say there was NOT sufficient justification to launch the CH investigation.

[suds]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

If Durham believed the investigation was not justified, he would not have stated ^this. Nowhere does the report say there was NOT sufficient justification to launch the CH investigation.

The best way to deal with your nonsense is to post Durham's conclusions in its entirety and not something cherry picked...

Conclusion

Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence  activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities. And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination. Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence.  In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. Section V discusses some of these issues more fully. This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out. Rather, it is intended to accurately describe the matters that fell under our review and to assist the Attorney General in determining how the Department and the FBI can do a better, more credible job in fulfilling its responsibilities, and in analyzing and responding to politically charged allegations in the future. Ultimately, of course, meeting those responsibilities comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines and policies currently in place, guidelines that date from the time of Attorney General Levi and that are designed to ensure the rule of law is upheld. As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old. The promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI's guiding principles of "Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity" are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI' s mission of "Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States.

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

It wasn't you, so your SPECULATION about what the passage means, means NOTHING, your imagined "wisdom and intellect" notwithstanding. LMAO

Merrick Garland had to review and approve the release of this report to the public, as this was a DOJ report.

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, suds said:

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was justified? In the executive summary under 'The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane' I'm reading things such as 'unevaluated intelligence', being opened without ever having spoken to those who provided the information, no significant review of its own intelligence databases or from other US intelligence agencies, non usage of standard analytical tools typically used by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence, including Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok's 'hostile feelings for Trump'. In addition, the FBI had no information indicating that 'anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials' during the campaign. It then goes on to question why this was so  markedly different from the FBI's actions with respect to other (but) highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign's plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin.

So where is this 'JUSTIFICATION'??

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was not justified? 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was not justified? 

Quote

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.

Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the (Justice) Department and FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report,” Durham wrote.

The report also concludes that “at least on the part of certain personnel intimately involved in the matter” there was “a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html

 

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, suds said:

Durham was correct in my opinion...

• Durham likely felt it was beyond the scope of his investigation and should be left up to the Attorney General to decide if any changes to guidelines and policies were to be made.
• And that guidelines and policies are only as good as the 'integrity of those who take the oath' to follow those guidelines and policies.

One thing he is not doing is excusing or exonerating those who lied or denied exculpatory evidence in the course of the Justice Department's investigation. So you found one little tidbit of light in a damning report and decided to pounce on it?  Too funny.

 

 

The purpose of Durham’s investigation was to determine whether the investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia was appropriate, or whether it was triggered by bogus Intel provided by Trump’s political rival.  
 

On this point, Durham is clear: The Crossfire Hurricane investigation began in July, 2016 based on Intel provided by an Australian diplomat, after WikiLeaks exposed Clinton emails which a Trump aide appeared to know of in advance.  The Steele dossier did not reach the FBI until mid-September, 2016.  THAT is what Durham’s report concluded.  
 

Any normal person would have reacted to the WikiLeaks with disgust and would have condemned this illegal theft, yet Trump made himself appear complicit by relishing every leak, thanking WikiLeaks, and encouraging Russia to steal more. So SHUT UP, because those are hard facts.  FACTS. Not “connecting dots,” not “Q drops.” FACTS. You hate facts, but those are facts.

[CdnFox]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:07 AM, Rebound said:

It’s a 316 page report and people are claiming to know what it says minutes after it’s released. I conclude, therefore, it has not changed anyone’s mind. No indictments, arrests, or convictions, so it accomplished nothing. 
 

Probable cause existed. A hostile foreign government was breaking multiple laws to hack and steal confidential information from a U.S. Presidential candidate in order to support her opponent. There is no question that this is true. 
 

Second, the opponent gleefully celebrated this lawlessness AND encouraged more of it.  Every decent human in America should have stopped supporting him right then.  He was running for office as chief of all law enforcement, while celebrating and encouraging crime.  
 

Third, US intelligence already knew there were ties between senior campaign staff and Russian government agents and had even warned some of these staffers to avoid further communications, which they ignored.  
 

That is a literal mountain of probable cause that conspiracy was occurring. Not “collusion,” because that’s not what the law is called. That is why Trump kept claiming “no collusion,” it’s because “conspiracy” is the crime, not “collusion.”

You can read the executive summary pretty quick. I take it you didn't try. Didn't take me that long (tho even the executive summary is fairly long on this one for a summary).

There wasn't probable cause. As they put it:

 Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report.

And also

FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence

In short they conclude there wasn't nearly enough probable cause based on what constituted probable cause (and didn't) for other cases.

So when you say "This is true" - no, this is a lie. There was no probable cause in this case.

As to your claim that there were no arrests or convictions or the like - indeed there was.  Kevin Clinesmith was charged and convicted over this.

As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order.

 

Kid - you really should at least read the summary before you make yourself look like more of an uneducated dolt than you do right now.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was not justified? 

IN.... THE.... EXECUTIVE..... SUMMARY.

Read it.  It'll take about 14 minutes and you'll look like less of a dolt when you talk.

They didn't have probable cause, they acted with less information than was considered the bare bones necessary for other investigations, they continued it even after they noted at the time and in hindsight that they didn't think there was any willing agreement or cooperation between trump and the russians.

 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The purpose of Durham’s investigation was to determine whether the investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia was appropriate, or whether it was triggered by bogus Intel provided by Trump’s political rival.  
 

On this point, Durham is clear: The Crossfire Hurricane investigation began in July, 2016 based on Intel provided by an Australian diplomat, after WikiLeaks exposed Clinton emails which a Trump aide appeared to know of in advance.  The Steele dossier did not reach the FBI until mid-September, 2016.  THAT is what Durham’s report concluded.  
 

Any normal person would have reacted to the WikiLeaks with disgust and would have condemned this illegal theft, yet Trump made himself appear complicit by relishing every leak, thanking WikiLeaks, and encouraging Russia to steal more. So SHUT UP, because those are hard facts.  FACTS. Not “connecting dots,” not “Q drops.” FACTS. You hate facts, but those are facts.

Ahem - from the report:

The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane 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  Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.23 The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information. 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, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, and the Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject. 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

 

So - the 'facts' are that the FBI did not do it's job and opened the investigation WITHOUT doing its dilligence or even speaking to the Australian.

So the diplomat DID NOT provide intel to the fbi, they didn't even speak to him. This was based on allegations that were unsubstantiated.

What was it you were saying about hating facts?

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

If Durham believed the investigation was not justified, he would not have stated ^this. Nowhere does the report say there was NOT sufficient justification to launch the CH investigation.

It does. As i've posted.

The fbi did not have sufficient evidence nor did htey do the usual checks before proceeding with an official investigation. It's quite clear.

Further for much of the time they admit they didn't think there was any connection or 'collusion' as the media calls it - they believed he wasn't willingly passing anything along or conspiring with them.

This report is quite damning.

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

Wow! You've really uncovered a damning report ^here. LMAO

it really is.   Lmao.

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

And you don't know HOW to substantiate YOUR CLAIMS with actual cites.

And apperently you don't know how to read on your own without someone spoonfeeding you. You don't want to hear anything that conflicts with your echo chamber.

Tell me - how on earth do you manage to type with your fingers stuck in your ears and humming?

[CdnFox]

18 hours ago, Rebound said:

That exchange with Obama had nothing to do with asking for favors to win his election. 

It absolutely did.

Obama is telling him to not push him before the election.  It would make obama look bad.  It would reduce his chances of winning,  AFTER the election then obama can give Vlad what he wants because it doesn't MATTER if he looks bad, he won't have to worry about an election ever again.

It is PRECISELY about an election. "You do what i want now so i can win, and after i win i'll do what you want". 

Pretty straight forward.

[Rebound]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It absolutely did.

Obama is telling him to not push him before the election.  It would make obama look bad.  It would reduce his chances of winning,  AFTER the election then obama can give Vlad what he wants because it doesn't MATTER if he looks bad, he won't have to worry about an election ever again.

It is PRECISELY about an election. "You do what i want now so i can win, and after i win i'll do what you want". 

Pretty straight forward.

What did Obama tell him to do? Nothing. 
 

I don’t know what they were negotiating or discussing, but we could figure it out if we look at what agreements were reached between the US and Russia during Obama’s second term.  

Edited May 17, 2023 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

What did Obama tell him to do? Nothing.

Precisely. Do nothing now and i'll do something later.

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I don’t know what they were negotiating or discussing, but we could figure it out if we look at what agreements were reached between the US and Russia during Obama’s second term.  

It was over some military or political issue in the middle east - i knew at the time but can't remember now. America was pushing it's interests and the russians were getting upset and so obama said back off and let me win and then i'll have a lot more freedom to cut you a deal.

[West]

23 hours ago, robosmith said:

Please QUOTE the "more evidence" to which you refer.

There is no law against "collusion" but there are laws against CONSPIRACY, esp conspiracy to break other laws.

Guess what a synonym for collusion is.

When Trump was the BOSS of the intelligence agency chiefs, he was ABLE TO FIRE anyone who tried to hold him accountable. They'd have to have STRONG evidence of a crime and great courage to take on the boss. Several were FIRED.

You mistake "holding Trump accountable" for TREASONOUS BEHAVIOR from Comey and the outgoing Barry boy administration

[reason10]

On 5/16/2023 at 7:07 AM, Rebound said:

It’s a 316 page report and people are claiming to know what it says minutes after it’s released. I conclude, therefore, it has not changed anyone’s mind. No indictments, arrests, or convictions, so it accomplished nothing. 
 

Probable cause existed. A hostile foreign government was breaking multiple laws to hack and steal confidential information from a U.S. Presidential candidate in order to support her opponent. There is no question that this is true. 
 

Second, the opponent gleefully celebrated this lawlessness AND encouraged more of it.  Every decent human in America should have stopped supporting him right then.  He was running for office as chief of all law enforcement, while celebrating and encouraging crime.  
 

Third, US intelligence already knew there were ties between senior campaign staff and Russian government agents and had even warned some of these staffers to avoid further communications, which they ignored.  
 

That is a literal mountain of probable cause that conspiracy was occurring. Not “collusion,” because that’s not what the law is called. That is why Trump kept claiming “no collusion,” it’s because “conspiracy” is the crime, not “collusion.”

Excuse me BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS,  but

this

http://h16free.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/sjw-tears-trump-derangement-syndrome.jpg

was not grounds for this ILLEGAL WITCH HUNT.

Those involved are guilty of TREASON. They belong in PRISON.