The "Russian Hoax"

[GaryK]

Correction. One person pled guilty to an unrelated crime and got probation. The only two people prosecuted by Durham were two people who were found NOT GUILTY of lying to the FBI.

What we could actually conclude is that Barr should never have launched the Durham investigation in the first place. That the Durham investigation was the actual political "witch hunt." Since they clearly had nothing. And he only did so in response to Trump's political interference. The exact thing Trump was claiming had happened to him.

Have you read the executive summary?

Yes, it is all full of weasel words and says very little.

I can appreciate your honesty.

[GaryK]

Oh, I get it, at that particular time they did not YET have evidence that any of the Russians involved in campaign interference were INTELLIGENCE officials. That came later. So yes, TECHNICALLY, I believe what Durham said in the paragraph you quoted, but you can't read that in isolation.

The quote I referenced is quite clearly not about whether or not any of the Russians involved in campaign interference were intelligence officials and I think you know that. It's about the FACT that at the time of the opening of Crossfire the FBI had no evidence whatsoever that DURING THE CAMPAIGN anyone within the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

But they did have evidence that members of the Trump campaign had unusual levels of contact with Russians who were close to the Russian government, while the Russian government was trying to influence our campaign. And Durham knows that.

And he wrote that sentence to be very, very specifically about intelligence officials. I suspect he did that for a reason. But it sounds like it means more than that, doesn't it?

And how do you know he wrote that sentence to be very, very specifically about intelligence officials? You seem to be reading a lot into things that are not actually stated. The context surrounding that sentence is the unusual way in which the FBI opened Crossfire. Here it is again:

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

I can't see how you are reading this to say that it's very, very specifically about intelligence officials.

[GaryK]

Big picture: Durham was asked to investigate whether crimes were committed when investigating Trump. And he was asked to prosecute any such crimes.

The introduction tells us that:

The Office has concluded its investigation into whether "'any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counterintelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump."

There are no new prosecutions as a result of this report. No high level F.B.I. or intelligence official has been charged with a crime. There are no major new revelations. The only two people Durham charged were people who lied to the F.B.I., not people who worked for the F.B.I. or on any of these investigations.

And Durham did not find evidence of politically motivated misconduct. I think Lawfare does a good job of outlining the history of this investigation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/notes-durha ... ding-diary

The FBI had claimed—and Special Counsel Robert Mueller had affirmed—that the whole thing started when an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer provided the U.S. with information that a Trump campaign advisor named George Papadopoulos had volunteered in a London meeting over drinks that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” But a bunch of Trump supporters ginned up a set of conspiracy theories that this was not how the investigation started, that it all started with Steele, or some secret informant, or that the CIA was involved somehow. Barr had been quite indiscreet about his own conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, talking openly in congressional hearings about “spying” on the Trump campaign. And major newspapers reported on how he and Durham had traveled overseas together seeking cooperation from foreign allied governments to upend the supposed Australian origins of the investigation.

And the Durham Report plainly says that the FBI was telling the truth. The reasons that Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Report gave were the real reasons that the investigation was opened:

a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane
In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy advisor. Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center of lntemational Law Practice. Among Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").

So what laws were violated by whom in this investigation? There are some, but they are not new. The Horowitz Report already talked about the use of the Steele Report, which the FBI knew was unreliable, in the Carter Page FISA affair:

https://oig.justice.gov/node/16547

But that seems to have been the main use of the Steele Report, it was not widely relied on, and the Horowitz Report went into great length on that.

So ... did Durham find new people to prosecute? New instances of crimes that were committed? Proof of a deep state consipracy against Trump? IT sure doesn't look like it. But that's what he was authorized to look for. And that's why this report looks like a dud to me.

Why focus only on this one part of the investigation as though it's the primary point of the investigation? This seems disingenuous at best. I refer you to the full big picture in the post where I quoted the questions Durham set out to answer.

[GaryK]

So ... did Durham find new people to prosecute? New instances of crimes that were committed? Proof of a deep state consipracy against Trump? IT sure doesn't look like it. But that's what he was authorized to look for. And that's why this report looks like a dud to me.

Here is what he said:

The decision of whether to bring criminal charges in any given matter thus is a
complicated one that is neither entirely subjective nor mechanistic. If this report and the
outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or
misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices
or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a
criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and
prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime
occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to
bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible
in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Robert]

But they did have evidence that members of the Trump campaign had unusual levels of contact with Russians who were close to the Russian government, while the Russian government was trying to influence our campaign.

Where is this reported?

[Szdfan]

But they did have evidence that members of the Trump campaign had unusual levels of contact with Russians who were close to the Russian government, while the Russian government was trying to influence our campaign.

Where is this reported?

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-p ... key-620215

Paul Manafort resigned as Trump's campaign director in August, after details emerged of his business dealings with the pro-Kremlin government in Kiev deposed in the Maidan protests in 2014. He was succeeded by former Breitbart publisher Steve Bannon, who currently serves as Trump's chief strategist.

The Justice Department's criminal investigation into Manafort reportedly pre-dates the July launch of the FBI counterintelligence investigation into alleged collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russia.

That investigation reportedly launched soon after the deposal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich in 2014.

[Szdfan]

But they did have evidence that members of the Trump campaign had unusual levels of contact with Russians who were close to the Russian government, while the Russian government was trying to influence our campaign.

Where is this reported?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... tercepted/

American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are looking at intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of an investigation into possible ties between President-elect Donald Trump’s associates and the Kremlin, The New York Times reports.

The report, published less than 24 hours before Trump is inaugurated, is reportedly focused on examining the business dealings that some of Trump’s closest confidants and operatives have had in Russia, including former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, already the subject of an FBI inquiry into his dealings in Russia and Ukraine.

[Bootstrap]

But they did have evidence that members of the Trump campaign had unusual levels of contact with Russians who were close to the Russian government, while the Russian government was trying to influence our campaign.

Where is this reported?

Szdfan has answered this with two good examples. Politico reported on this here:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/1 ... ays-397597

It’s the furthest U.S. officials have gone in describing Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort business associate, as an agent of the Russian government. The disclosure was part of the committee’s fifth and final installment of its investigation of the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

In particular, the committee’s investigation found that Manafort “represented a grave counterintelligence threat” due to his relationship with Kilimnik and other Russians connected to the country’s intelligence services — a bombshell conclusion that underscores how Russia developed a direct pipeline to the upper echelons of a U.S. presidential campaign.

“Kilimnik quickly became an integral part of Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia,” the report states, adding that the pair “formed a close and lasting relationship that would endure to the 2016 U.S. elections and beyond.”

The actual report is here:

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume5.pdf

[Bootstrap]

It's also worth reading the Roger Stone indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/roge ... -tampering

And Roger Stone's conviction:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/roge ... -tampering

Trump pardoned both Manafort and Stone, of course, for crimes related to promoting his own campaign. When Trump said "Russia, are you listening?", that's a pretty clear indication that he knew Russia was behind the Wikileaks hacks. Both Trump and Stone claimed to know, in advance, what the Russians might leak. Within hours of Trump's "Russia, are you listening" comment, Russia was stepping up operations.

[Bootstrap]

Big picture: Durham was asked to investigate whether crimes were committed when investigating Trump. And he was asked to prosecute any such crimes.

The introduction tells us that:

The Office has concluded its investigation into whether "'any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counterintelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump."

!!! SNIP !!!

So ... did Durham find new people to prosecute? New instances of crimes that were committed? Proof of a deep state consipracy against Trump? IT sure doesn't look like it. But that's what he was authorized to look for. And that's why this report looks like a dud to me.

Why focus only on this one part of the investigation as though it's the primary point of the investigation? This seems disingenuous at best. I refer you to the full big picture in the post where I quoted the questions Durham set out to answer.

This was the one thing that Durham was authorized to investigate, the purpose of the report. Durham was appointed as a special prosecutor. That is the big picture. And he didn't find anything to prosecute.

This is the big picture: Durham investigated at length a series of conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation and found no evidence of any of them.

So did Durham simply forget what he was originally commissioned to do? Even though he quotes it in the introduction? He does actually admit these things, but you have to look in the footnotes. Why wasn't this one of the first things said in the executive summary?

So when I am interested in what Durham did not say, he didn't have much to say about the purpose of the report And that's why it feels like a dud to me.