The "Russian Hoax"

[Szdfan]

Manafort was under investigation by the FBI and NSA during that time for links to Russia. He was ultimately convicted of lying about it and other financial crimes. But they knew he had connections to Russia.

Manafort was under criminal investigation by the FBI in 2014 for his connections to Viktor Yanukovych prior to Trump announcing his presidential campagin.

[Josh]

Manafort was under investigation by the FBI and NSA during that time for links to Russia. He was ultimately convicted of lying about it and other financial crimes. But they knew he had connections to Russia.

Manafort was under criminal investigation by the FBI in 2014 for his connections to Viktor Yanukovych prior to Trump announcing his presidential campagin.

Yet the convictions so far are all for process crimes, not actual crimes.

[GaryK]

Durham can write that and try to spin things that way but it doesn't make it true. For example, Paul Manafort had been under investigation since 2014 by a variety of Federal agencies including both the FBI and NSA and he was known to have been in contact with Russian intelligence. And Paul Manafort was Trump's first campaign manager. These facts are easily obtained: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

Simply put, I'll take Durham's word over yours. If I remember correctly, Manafort was not indicted or convicted for anything to do with Trump/Russia, which is what the Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller, and Durham investigations were about.

Manafort was under investigation by the FBI and NSA during that time for links to Russia. He was ultimately convicted of lying about it and other financial crimes. But they knew he had connections to Russia.

What Durham is actually saying is that The documents that the FBI prepared to launch the Crossfire investigation didn't include other information warranting an investigation if you discount the FISA stuff that he thinks was done inappropriately. But all that means is that the FBI didn't write down all that it knew or was suspicious about in the documents to support that opening of the Crossfire Investigation. Which is understandable and reasonable. You don't do a 10,000 page document dump when writing the memo justifying opening an investigation. You just cite your probably cause. The bar is actually pretty low. The FBI can and should investigate leads that it encounters. All police agencies do this.

So read the quote you posted carefully. He isn't saying that the FBI didn't have other information or reason to open investigations into Russian meddling. There was a huge amount of information at that time. All he is saying is that Strzok didn't write any of it down in the memo supporting opening the Crossfire investigation. Which is something entirely different. He is very careful in his wording. We know that the FBI actually had an enormous amount of information at that time.

"What Durham is actually saying..."

I did read it carefully but it appears you haven't. He's not "actually" saying that Strzok had the information but didn't write any of it down in the memo supporting opening the Crossfire investigation. Here's what he actually says in the summary.

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.

Durham says the FBI, not Strozk, had no information in its holdings to indicate that ANYONE in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russia.

[Bootstrap]

I think both of you are conflating the Mueller and the Crossfire Hurricane investigations. My understanding is that Durham took issue with how the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched, not the Mueller investigation.

I don't think I am. Here's what I said earlier, quoting what Durham said about Crossfire Hurricane:

From the report:

Thus, at the time of opening Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had (i) publicly available
information concerning Papadopoulos's role in the campaign as a volunteer foreign policy
adviser, (ii) information obtained from Papadopoulos by the Australian diplomats, (iii)
information about Russia's likely election interference activities, (iv) Trump's public
statements about Russia, and (v) unvetted media reporting on possible ties between Trump
and Russian businessmen.

Durham agrees that's enough to open a preliminary investigation. But not a full one. He says they should first have gathered the information that they later found, then turned it into a full examination.

There was another investigation into the same thing, by Office of Inspector General Horowitz. The Horowitz report concluded specifically that this was sufficient grounds for a full investigation:

FBI's then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD), E.W. "Bill" Priestap, to open Crossfire Hurricane and reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials. We concluded that AD Priestap's exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. While the information in the FBI's possession at the time was limited, in light of the low threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication.

Durham seems to disagree, but he does NOT say there should have been no investigation, he says it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation. So when he says they should not have launched a full investigation, it's important to remember that's what he means. Durham also says the FBI was obligated to investigate this:

As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign.

Unlike Horowitz, Durham thinks it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation.

So here's an odd thing. The Horowitz Report was an investigation by the Office of Inspector General of the Justice Department into these same questions. And Durham does not mention the name Horowitz even once. Horowitz reached different conclusions, there's no discussion of why Durham disagrees with Horowitz. A careful comparison of the evidence and findings of the two reports would be useful. I imagine that will come out if we're patient.

[Bootstrap]

I'll let Durham's executive summary speak for itself.

You could start with the first paragraph of Durham's executive summary, which seems to say that these investigations found a LOT of substantial information.

The public record contains a substantial body of information relating to former President Trump's and the Trump Organization's relationships with Russian businesses, Russian business people, and Russian officials, as well as separate evidence of Russia's attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. These and related subjects are well-documented in the careful examinations undertaken by (i) the Department's Office of the Inspector General of issues related to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation and its use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") authorities, (ii) former FBI Director Robert Mueller as detailed in his report entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election," issued in March 2019, and (iii) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence entitled, "Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 US. Election. " The scope of these earlier inquiries, the amount of important information gathered, and the contributions they have made to our understanding of Russian election interference efforts are a tribute to the diligent work and dedication of those charged with the responsibility of conducting them.

Durham seems to be praising these reports, not finding fault with them. According to those reports, this wasn't a Russia Hoax. It was real.

Durham also says that there was information on some of these things, at the time of Crossfire Hurricane, that needed to be investigated. Durham believes it should have started with a preliminary investigation. Horowitz said, in his own investigation of the same things at the Office of Inspector General of the Justice Department, that a full investigation was warranted.

Durham does not say these things should not have been investigated or that there was no evidence. He and Horowitz both examined what evidence was available at what time to whom when they discuss whether it was OK to open a full investigation at the time of Crossfire Hurricane. They reach different conclusions.

[GaryK]

It's very interesting to me how certain people are saying "Durham didn't say" as if that is just as or more important than what he actually said.

[Bootstrap]

It's very interesting to me how certain people are saying "Durham didn't say" as if that is just as or more important than what he actually said.

Oh, look at all the times I quote what Durham did say. You don't seem to be responding to those quotes. Durham said there should have been an investigation. He praises the results of the reports that came as a result.

[GaryK]

I think both of you are conflating the Mueller and the Crossfire Hurricane investigations. My understanding is that Durham took issue with how the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was launched, not the Mueller investigation.

I don't think I am. Here's what I said earlier, quoting what Durham said about Crossfire Hurricane:

Here is your response to Grace.

FBI aside. The Mueller Investigation cost the tax payers over 12 million dollars. The investigation interviewed over 500 witnesses, lasted almost 2 years. Now we have the Durham Report, through investigation, saying that the Mueller Investigation should never have happened.

Actually, no. It doesn't say that. It actually says that it SHOULD have been investigated, but Durham says he thinks it should have been opened as a preliminary investigation, not as a full investigation. But Durham did not say that opening it as a full investigation violated any rule or law. He didn't charge any high-level FBI or intelligence official with any crime, and one of his footnote says that the Clinton campaign did nothing prosecutable in 2016.

I thought you were responding to Grace's assertion that Durham says the Mueller investigation should never have happened.

[GaryK]

It's very interesting to me how certain people are saying "Durham didn't say" as if that is just as or more important than what he actually said.

Oh, look at all the times I quote what Durham did say. You don't seem to be responding to those quotes. Durham said there should have been an investigation. He praises the results of the reports that came as a result.

I didn't say anything about the times you quote Durham. I just simply observed how what Durham didn't say seems to be quite important to certain people, which to me is interesting.

[GaryK]

Durham does not say these things should not have been investigated or that there was no evidence. He and Horowitz both examined what evidence was available at what time to whom when they discuss whether it was OK to open a full investigation at the time of Crossfire Hurricane. They reach different conclusions.

Do you believe Durham when he says the underlined/bolded?

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.