Not a good look for Comey
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
No defense for FBI. They were being used to target a political opponent. They made fools of educated people, and it worked. Most of the people will never know the truth since the media covers for them. I have zero faith in the FBI. Must admit pretty amazing how they could pull off and waste millions of dollars investigating something they knew was not true. They captured the hearts and minds of a big portion of our country’s population, only took 7 years to figure out what some of us knew 5 years ago. They have had Hunters laptop since 2019 are they stupid or controlled by Democratic Party. Brainwashing is a terrible thing to waste.
Where is NYshoreguy who can spot a Republican jaywalking across South Orange Avenue but disappears with the biggest scandal in our history. Not one of them will ever serve a day in jail, that will be the even bigger scandal.
I have to read this report. Interestingly vague language that is favorable to Trump. we conclude that the 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. What does that mean?
But then there was this. Former special counsel Robert Mueller ultimately did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but his report detailed extensive election interference by the Kremlin and repeated contacts with Trump-linked officials.
So, there is all these contacts between the Trump campaign like Manafort sending election info to a Russian. Yet,while the investigation did reveal these contacts which clearly revealed Russian interference, he concludes that it should not have started because it didn’t uphold to the fidelity of the law? What does that mean? Coming from someone who lost every case he brought, I don’t think this report says anything. Since he recommends no changes.
I will have to read this report. The language seems odd. Where there flaws? Yes. But that doesn’t mean the investigation was not warranted. And the report says the investigation should have been opened.
But then there was this. Former special counsel Robert Mueller ultimately did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but his report detailed extensive election interference by the Kremlin and repeated contacts with Trump-linked officials.
So, there is all these contacts between the Trump campaign like Manafort sending election info to a Russian. Yet,while the investigation did reveal these contacts which clearly revealed Russian interference, he concludes that it should not have started because it didn’t uphold to the fidelity of the law? What does that mean? Coming from someone who lost every case he brought, I don’t think this report says anything. Since he recommends no changes.
I will have to read this report. The language seems odd. Where there flaws? Yes. But that doesn’t mean the investigation was not warranted. And the report says the investigation should have been opened.
From what I have read they acted on information like the Steele Dossier that they really never checked out for accuracy.
Not really. He lost two and won one.
I haven't read the entire report either, but I haven't seen where he said the investigation shouldn't have been opened in the first place. He is careful to point out that it is not politically motivated, but probably because both Democrats (where much of the information was paid for and came from) and Republicans didn't want Trump in the White House.
Two things I take from this. The FBI comes out looking bad once again (especially Comey) and it does make you question the motivation behind the investigation. And clearly, many of these Trump/Russia conspiracy theories linked to the dossier now look even sillier.
The second thing is that the report gives oxygen to Trump to continue his witch hunt narrative which is very unfortunate as he just needs to go away.
If he was favorable to Trump this investigation would have ended several years ago. Durham like Mueller milked the investigations for more money. They open the case based on the Steele dossier which never should have happened.
To me it means they should have taken a different more legit approach minus the made for TV Steele Dossier. Media and FBI sensationalism is what is wrong here, politically partisan bias reporting and investigation which divides our country. The lying and deceit just fuels the culture war. Don't forget people listened to what we now know as lies for several years every night on TV. The real Russian interference you discuss above was lost in all of this, and honestly seems like nothing when you take the Steele Dossier away.
FBI disgraced by Comey gang and unfortunately it has damaged their reputation.Hating Trump is not a justifiable reason to weaponize the FBI against Him.Now Biden lackey Garland becoming most political AG in modern era.Unfortunately if you give enough handouts you can control a significant portion of voters who are dependent on sugar daddy federal government and who crave the handouts you know like billions of unspent grants for Covid that obviously were not needed.
Incorrect. The investigation was opened prior to the FBI receiving the dossier. That's even in this Durham report.
This investigation all still happens without the Dossier.
Right off the bat with the report this is what Durham was to investigate. "
The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration or President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation o Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.
What the Order does not do.
"We also have not interpreted the Order as directing us to consider the handling or the investigation into President Trump opened by the FBI on May 16, 2017."
So far reading the summary of this report, this is really the conclusion of the report:
"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 ofthe FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. 45 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."
There should have been people who should have been interviewed, and FBI agent fabricated language getting one FISA warrant, and they should have judged the evidence coming in more critically. So far, one FBI agent got probation for altering an email stating Carter Page was not a source for the CIA. This was used as part of an extension for the FISA Extension on Carter Page.
So far, this is much ado about nothing.
The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration or President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation o Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.
What the Order does not do.
"We also have not interpreted the Order as directing us to consider the handling or the investigation into President Trump opened by the FBI on May 16, 2017."
So far reading the summary of this report, this is really the conclusion of the report:
"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 ofthe FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. 45 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."
There should have been people who should have been interviewed, and FBI agent fabricated language getting one FISA warrant, and they should have judged the evidence coming in more critically. So far, one FBI agent got probation for altering an email stating Carter Page was not a source for the CIA. This was used as part of an extension for the FISA Extension on Carter Page.
So far, this is much ado about nothing.
That's fine but the media rode that Steele Dossier pony for years. Is that what we want?
I understand if you are a Democrat there is nothing here.If you are an independent or a Republican you don’t think it is ok for FBI leadership to work for one candidate by pushing false stories like Russia conclusion by the opposing candidate Even if you are not criminally prosecuted ( anyway good luck getting people working against Trump convicted in DC where dems outnumber republicans 14-1 ).The agent who lied on FISA warrant was recommend for 6 month jail sentence by prosecutors but judge who certainly was ok with this lie for a good cause gave him probation.
The FBI not doing their job which kept a false story alive for an extended period of time that had implications on the Presidential election, is not much ado about nothing.
It was not about doing their job it was more about his they should have done better. This is more like an autopsy of an investigation on what could have done better. Should they have interviewed a witness here. Or corroborated more evidence. But I am like 60 pages in now.
This is how it reads so far. More information. At the outset, the FBI received information about Papadopolous. Russia reached out to Trump and would assist in releasing documents that would hurt Obama and Clinton. the report states that the FBI has the obligation to open up a preliminary investigation but he did not think a full investigation was warranted without more corroboration. Up to interpretation
So, it really is about what could have been done better, not about some conspiracy between Clinton and the FBI. There was none.
That’s not what I said. By not doing their job, the so-called investigation was propped up by the press non-stop when it never deserved to be.
I get it. You disagreed with Durham. I think his credentials are a little bit better than yours.
Not really. He’s taking the time to actually understand what the report says, rather than letting the media and politicians spin their narrative.
The report generally says (so far) that they should have done better overall but it also said they were not wrong for investigating.
Papadopoulos bragged about the dirt the campaign had from Russia. That’s what started this and Durham acknowledged that.
It wasn’t Hillary. It wasn’t the deep state. It was his own campaign talking about Russians helping his campaign that started this.
cern is partisan…painfully obvious, so your view that he “took the time” is meaningless and laughable.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/polit...estigation-and-its-lasting-impact-on-the-fbi/
News Nation/AP are down the middle and even quote sections of the report.
“He argues the FBI showed caution about possibly influencing Hillary Clinton’s campaign that it did not show for Trump’s campaign.”
“The FBI labeled its reviews linked to “Clinton Cash” as “preliminary investigations,” Durham said. But the Trump Russia probe, he said, “was immediately opened as a full investigation despite the fact that it was similarly predicated on unvetted hearsay information.”
The report contends that the FBI fell prone to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring, minimizing or rationalizing away evidence that undercut the premise of collusion, including a conversation in which Papadopoulos vigorously denied knowing about any cooperative relationship between Russia and the Trump campaign.
“It also says investigators did not corroborate a “single substantive allegation” in a dossier of Democratic-funded research that was compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, and yet continued to cite it in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.”
‘Russia case’ against Trump was a shocking conspiracy that continues today
As detailed in the report, President Barack Obama and his national security team were briefed on how “a trusted foreign source” revealed “a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tyin…
nypost.com
He’s done more than anyone else here on the topic and he's right, this is a flop by any measure compared to what has been suggested over the last several years. This investigation went on way longer than the Mueller investigation and delivered even less than that one did, which I think you'd agree was a flop.
He did, but first he found no issue with opening an investigation based on a politically driven source.
So it's odd to see that as ok, but not using the Steele dossier in the FISA application against Page?
Also, Page was removed from the Trump campaign from months when the FISA warrant was issued. So the entire Page FISA application process is really unrelated to the Trump. It was because they believed that Page was being recruited by Russia.
This part to me is just absurd "As the record now reflects, at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI did not possess any intelligence showing that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence officers at any point during the campaign."
The FBI had intelligence from Australia saying that Papadopoulos bragged that Russia was helping the campaign and then you had the DNC e-mail hack and e-mails released by Russia and THEN Crossfire hurricane was opened. Of course they would open an investigation there... and of course it would be one more significant than something that was published in a book about something from years ago because this was happening in actual real time.
And from there we learned that Roger Stone was coordinating the e-mail release with Guccifer (Russian government hacker) and Manafort was coordinating with Kilimnik which is somehow not even mentioned in the Durham report?
Adam Schiff still has conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia ,but he can’t disclose. it The liar in chief on the Russia collusion for some reason doesn’t want to expose Trump.Maybe he will do it when he runs for Senate in 2024 LOL.
Flop by who? YOUR MSM media sources? If you think it was a flop based on Trump's claim than of course. But who believes Trump?
It was probably enough to open it, but clearly he is saying that based on not verifying the sources, it should have been shut down or put on hold until it could be verified. That's the issue...they continued with the investigation when they shouldn't have.
Ask Durham. You may think i's absurd or odd, but once again, he has credentials that no one on a message board does.
No doubt Durham has great credentials. No one is saying that. Durham's conclusion that the FBI didn't follow the fidelity of the law was based upon a comparison to the Clinton investigation. Clearly, things were done differently when you compare the two investigations in which he points out in the document.
What he fails to recognize and what is being lost by I think everyone in the media is that while the two investigations are similar, there are two major differences which is why this went full investigation instead of preliminary.
1) The Trump investigation involved an enemy state in Russia.
2) Timing of Investigations. This is the most important factor.
The Clinton investigation started when the FBI received information that a foreign government looked to contribute to Clinton campaign. The Clinton Investigation started in late 2014 before Clinton even announced she was running. The FBI Field Office sought to immediately open up a full investigation. FISA authorization was sought and there was a delay of 11 months. The authorization was ultimately given but conditioned that Clinton be given a defensive briefing. The FBI could be more deliberate due to the time they had to investigate this matter.
Durham states in his repot that it is unclear why defensive briefings were given to Clinton and not Trump. Well, the Trump investigation started late July 2016 early August 2016. We are talking 4 months before the election. That is a big reason why they had to open up a full investigation because they did not have time because the election was imminent.
Durham based most of his criticism based upon this rash to open up an investigation which stood in contrast to the Clinton investigation. But the two cannot be compared due to timing.
Second Clinton investigation was based upon the book Clinton Cash. Three field offices opened up investigations based upon a book in January 2016. Apparently, this was so weak that it was declined to be investigated based upon the unvetted hearsay of the allegations in the book. Durham states this was in contrast to what happened with Trump with unvetted information. But one came from a book and another came from trusted diplomatic allies.
Up to Page 81.
What he fails to recognize and what is being lost by I think everyone in the media is that while the two investigations are similar, there are two major differences which is why this went full investigation instead of preliminary.
1) The Trump investigation involved an enemy state in Russia.
2) Timing of Investigations. This is the most important factor.
The Clinton investigation started when the FBI received information that a foreign government looked to contribute to Clinton campaign. The Clinton Investigation started in late 2014 before Clinton even announced she was running. The FBI Field Office sought to immediately open up a full investigation. FISA authorization was sought and there was a delay of 11 months. The authorization was ultimately given but conditioned that Clinton be given a defensive briefing. The FBI could be more deliberate due to the time they had to investigate this matter.
Durham states in his repot that it is unclear why defensive briefings were given to Clinton and not Trump. Well, the Trump investigation started late July 2016 early August 2016. We are talking 4 months before the election. That is a big reason why they had to open up a full investigation because they did not have time because the election was imminent.
Durham based most of his criticism based upon this rash to open up an investigation which stood in contrast to the Clinton investigation. But the two cannot be compared due to timing.
Second Clinton investigation was based upon the book Clinton Cash. Three field offices opened up investigations based upon a book in January 2016. Apparently, this was so weak that it was declined to be investigated based upon the unvetted hearsay of the allegations in the book. Durham states this was in contrast to what happened with Trump with unvetted information. But one came from a book and another came from trusted diplomatic allies.
Up to Page 81.
Flop by any standard. It took more than twice as long as the Mueller investigation (you complained about the length of that one) and it didn't result in any new information or indictments. Really not much different than the OIG report released 4 years ago.
Not "probably". Durham even acknowledged it was.
I understand his criticisms and I'm not questioning all of them. Some are obviously valid and he thinks more work should have been done within the agency and their own experts on Russia. I do think he should have included the facts about the DNC emails being released 9 days before crossfire hurricane was opened as that is an important part of the timeline here.
So did Mueller and Comey. You didn't seem to have an issue questioning them.
Does an investigation need to result in indictments to be successful? I would think it needs to be thorough and accurate.
I didn't say it wasn't a successful investigation. I said it was a flop.
The narrative was that there would be, and that was from the former DNI.
Ex-DNI Ratcliffe expects ‘more indictments’ in Durham’s Russiagate probe
John Ratcliffe said Monday that he expects to see “quite a few more indictments” come out of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation.
nypost.com
It’s a matter of expectations….pretty much all of these investigations and hearings don’t come close to the narratives. Hillary’s emails, Libyan embassy, Trump/Russia, perfect Ukraine call. I don’t refer to them as flops. The result of the Durham investigation pointed to a number of failures in the FBI. That’s not insignificant.I didn't say it wasn't a successful investigation. I said it was a flop.
The narrative was that there would be, and that was from the former DNI.
Ex-DNI Ratcliffe expects ‘more indictments’ in Durham’s Russiagate probe
John Ratcliffe said Monday that he expects to see “quite a few more indictments” come out of Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation.
The OIG report from 4 years ago already said all of that though and the FBI has already implemented corrective actions to address the issues identified. This report really didn't add anything.
So? Whether changes were made or not the investigation concluded that the FBI not doing their job properly.
From Fox “Who is going to trust the Department of Justice now? In the wake of Special Counsel John Durham’s long-awaited report, Americans now know there was widespread political collusion and deliberate deception from the very top of the Obama administration, the Clinton campaign, the corporate media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), all in favor of the Democrats.”
Lol the report specifically says there was no evidence of political collusion. This is what Trump and the Republicans were after and the report specifically says no. But that doesn’t prevent Fox from lying.
Like I said, there is not much in this report which is an autopsy of what can be done better. However, by comparing it with the Clinton Investigation, it skewed the tone.
1) The Trump investigation should have been opened
2) Durham believes it should have been a preliminary investigation as opposed to a full fledged investigation. Subtle difference.
3) Durham believes certain investigative steps were not done. This is true.
4) in comparison, to the Clinton Investigation, there was a difference in how deliberate the investigation steps were. This is true. But,
5) Durham ignores the differences in the two investigations that necessitates opening a full investigation due to Russia being involved and only 4 months to election. The top echelon of the FBI made the call on opening the full investigation. Durham’s conclusion about it should have been a preliminary investigation is really opinion. The difference is not much. An investigation was warranted. Term it preliminary or full. It really doesn’t matter. The investigation was warranted.
6) Durham uses Strzok’s texts as evidence that investigators were predisposed to investigate Trump. However, he later uses Strzok’s words to say that the evidence was thin. Well was he predisposed or was he being fair, What was it?
Lol the report specifically says there was no evidence of political collusion. This is what Trump and the Republicans were after and the report specifically says no. But that doesn’t prevent Fox from lying.
Like I said, there is not much in this report which is an autopsy of what can be done better. However, by comparing it with the Clinton Investigation, it skewed the tone.
1) The Trump investigation should have been opened
2) Durham believes it should have been a preliminary investigation as opposed to a full fledged investigation. Subtle difference.
3) Durham believes certain investigative steps were not done. This is true.
4) in comparison, to the Clinton Investigation, there was a difference in how deliberate the investigation steps were. This is true. But,
5) Durham ignores the differences in the two investigations that necessitates opening a full investigation due to Russia being involved and only 4 months to election. The top echelon of the FBI made the call on opening the full investigation. Durham’s conclusion about it should have been a preliminary investigation is really opinion. The difference is not much. An investigation was warranted. Term it preliminary or full. It really doesn’t matter. The investigation was warranted.
6) Durham uses Strzok’s texts as evidence that investigators were predisposed to investigate Trump. However, he later uses Strzok’s words to say that the evidence was thin. Well was he predisposed or was he being fair, What was it?
If you support the a Bidunce Administration and the affiliated 3-Letter Agencies, at this point, you are embracing FASCISM
The predicate for opening this as a full investigation was the information from Australia which the provided because of the DNC e-mail hack and released e-mail. In order to open a full investigation you need "Articulable factual basis that reasonably indicates the existence of federal criminal activity or a threat to national security (or to protect against such activity or threat)"
So why would the hack of the DNC e-mail (which was done by Russia) combined with the fact that Papadopoulos was bragging about Russia having dirt on Hillary not meet the standard?
It appears the only major difference between a full investigation and a preliminary investigation is that some tools would not have been available. It's not really clear if those tools were even used? Would anything have been actually different if it was opened as a preliminary investigation? So far my understanding is that there would have been no difference at all.
There is very little difference. I think the biggest difference is the ability to do non-consensual electronic surveillance, ie wiretaps. Again, this is a matter of interpretation. Two people can come to a different conclusion as to whether it should be full or preliminary. But the timing of when this happened seems to generate a more urgent action
