The "Russian Hoax"

[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:



!!! 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.

That's simply not true that he didn't find anything to prosecute. He prosecuted 2 cases that were directly tied to what he was investigating. Granted, he lost those cases but he apparently felt he had enough evidence of criminality to prosecute. This is unlike the Mueller investigation, where I don't think any of the cases he prosecuted and got convictions for had anything to do with the alleged Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Once again I remind you of this part of the report:

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.

I think I remember you and others using something very similar found in the Mueller report to suggest that this means that wrongdoings did occur. I wonder why you view this one differently.

[GaryK]

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.

Durham says this is not true:

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.

[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.

Durham says this is not true:

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[.

Not in that paragraph, at least. I highlighted the two relevant phrases - they do not mean the same thing.

And I don't think anybody, at that time, was saying there was definite evidence that the Trump campaign knew they were dealing with Russian intelligence officials. So why does Durham even say that?

[Bootstrap]

That's simply not true that he didn't find anything to prosecute. He prosecuted 2 cases that were directly tied to what he was investigating. Granted, he lost those cases but he apparently felt he had enough evidence of criminality to prosecute.

He didn't prosecute FBI agents, he prosecuted people who lied to the FBI. Not the same thing at all.

This is unlike the Mueller investigation, where I don't think any of the cases he prosecuted and got convictions for had anything to do with the alleged Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Go back and read the convictions of Manafort and Stone, which I just posted recently. And if you want the big picture, take the time to look at how the crimes of other people who pled guilty or were convicted were related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Once again I remind you of this part of the report:

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.

I think I remember you and others using something very similar found in the Mueller report to suggest that this means that wrongdoings did occur. I wonder why you view this one differently.

I don't think the Mueller Report concludes that Trump was guilty of anything. In fact, Mueller specifically says he is not allowed to reach that conclusion, regardless of the facts.

Mueller could not determine whether Trump was guilty because Mueller could not prosecute the President of the United States. Therefore, his report does not make that claim. Congress could impeach him, but Mueller's job is not to determine whether a sitting president should be impeached. He did, however, identify evidence that Congress might want to investigate, without making statements of actual guilt because Mueller had no place where that case could be prosecuted and Trump could defend himself. Durham was in a very different position with this report. And Mueller did, in fact, have significant and serious guilty pleas and convictions for these crimes. Again, look at Manafort and Stone's convictions that I just posted for a couple of important examples.

There was, in fact, some significant wrongdoing involving the Carter Page FISA application. But the Horowitz Report was already quite clear about that. And as a special prosecutor, Durham's job is to determine who should be prosecuted. Just like Mueller. If he uncovers things that should be used in some other setting, such as an impeachment, Durham should pass that on to people in a position to do that.

[GaryK]

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.

Durham says this is not true:

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[.

Not in that paragraph, at least. I highlighted the two relevant phrases - they do not mean the same thing.

And I don't think anybody, at that time, was saying there was definite evidence that the Trump campaign knew they were dealing with Russian intelligence officials. So why does Durham even say that?

Okay, so provide me with the evidence in either Crossfire, Mueller or Durham.

[Bootstrap]

Okay, so provide me with the evidence in either Crossfire, Mueller or Durham.

Go back and read the Manafort and Stone convictions, for starters. I just posted them. They were found guilty of just that sort of thing. With evidence and a jury and all that. And remember that Paul Manafort was Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign Chairman, a man already under investigation by the FBI for his dealings in Russia and Ukraine before that time. Didn't they vet their own people?

But then Trump made those convictions go away with a presidential pardon. And people like Stone, Manafort, and Bannon because celebrated talk show hosts and helped people shape narratives about these very things - instead of going to jail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/us/p ... stone.html

President Trump doled out clemency to a new group of loyalists on Wednesday, wiping away convictions and sentences as he aggressively employed his power to override courts, juries and prosecutors to apply his own standard of justice for his allies.

One recipient of a pardon was a family member, Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Two others who were pardoned declined to cooperate with prosecutors in connection with the special counsel’s Russia investigation: Paul Manafort, his 2016 campaign chairman, and Roger J. Stone Jr., his longtime informal adviser and friend.

[Robert]

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.

And Manafort was removed from the campaign. Both the news sources you have both used are ones that have shown to be political and wrong on multiple things. You seem to keep trusting news sources that show their bias.

My struggle with all this is Hunter Biden was on a Ukrainian gas company board and received large amounts of money yet this is ignored as foreign interference.

Other presidents have had people like Manafort on their campaigns and it is totally ignored. China has a much larger influence on the politics of the US and this is ignored. There were democratic operatives that had the same ties as Manafort and they were ignored. I would trust all this more if there was at least an attempt to be balanced on these investigations.

My question to several here who seem to greatly dislike Trump. It is okay. You are allowed. I do not like him much as a person myself. Why is there the level of hate? It is like some just can't wait to see him fail and be put to shame. He was President for 4 years. The world did not end. We had no major wars. The government did not crash. On the contrary, some things went well. SO what is the fear of this man?

I mean there are some big investigations going on of the Bidens right now which suggest a lot of foreign interference. No one has started any threads about it. There is not the need to prove Biden is evil like there seems to be with Trump. I don't really understand the push to get Trump. He is not the best president the US has ever had, but not the worse either. Why the need to prove him evil? These are not rhetorical questions, but some I would really like to hear and listen to.

[Bootstrap]

My question to several here who seem to greatly dislike Trump. It is okay. You are allowed. I do not like him much as a person myself. Why is there the level of hate?

I don't think there is. When we talk about facts, the things people were found guilty of, etc., that's not hate. Now spreading the latest juicy rumor you hear on "your side" of the political fight, that looks a lot like hate to me, just wanting them to be guilty, seeking personal hits against them. But waiting for the facts to come in, for the trials to occur, and reading carefully to see what they determined ... I don't think that's hate.

When people talk about who they like and who they do don't like, creating enemies and heroes, declare that trials were invalid if someone on their side gets convicted, don't trust the votes if their favorite did not get elected, downplay the seriousness of people using extremely hateful language, defend people like the Proud Boys ... that looks more like hate to me. Sometimes even with very strong, emotional, language that I could only imagine using with someone I hate intensely. Though I hear it in political discourse all the time. And yes, there is hate on the left too.

If you ever see me say or endorse hateful language, please quote specifically what you are talking about, and we can look at that together. I don't think I do that. But let's be clear about what we mean by hate, how you can identify it, and use the same standards for everyone. Because I think it IS possible for Christians to promote hate, and I think that's a bad thing. And we can all be vulnerable to that.

But in this thread, perhaps we should focus on the facts, and what they show?

[GaryK]

That's simply not true that he didn't find anything to prosecute. He prosecuted 2 cases that were directly tied to what he was investigating. Granted, he lost those cases but he apparently felt he had enough evidence of criminality to prosecute.

He didn't prosecute FBI agents, he prosecuted people who lied to the FBI. Not the same thing at all.

I never said anything about FBI agents in the post I responded to neither did you. You only said that he didn't find anything to prosecute. Please stop with the changing of subjects. It's hard to have a conversation with you if you keep doing things like this.

This is unlike the Mueller investigation, where I don't think any of the cases he prosecuted and got convictions for had anything to do with the alleged Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Go back and read the convictions of Manafort and Stone, which I just posted recently. And if you want the big picture, take the time to look at how the crimes of other people who pled guilty or were convicted were related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Once again I remind you of this part of the report:

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.

I think I remember you and others using something very similar found in the Mueller report to suggest that this means that wrongdoings did occur. I wonder why you view this one differently.

I don't think the Mueller Report concludes that Trump was guilty of anything. In fact, Mueller specifically says he is not allowed to reach that conclusion, regardless of the facts.

Once again I said nothing about guilt. I specifically said wrongdoing. Guilty is a legal term in such matters. Are you disputing my remembering that you used a very similar statement in Muellers report to suggest that wrongdoings did occur?

[GaryK]

Okay, so provide me with the evidence in either Crossfire, Mueller or Durham.

Go back and read the Manafort and Stone convictions, for starters. I just posted them. They were found guilty of just that sort of thing. With evidence and a jury and all that. And remember that Paul Manafort was Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign Chairman, a man already under investigation by the FBI for his dealings in Russia and Ukraine before that time. Didn't they vet their own people?

So are you saying that Mueller prosecuted Manafort and Stone for Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election? If so, I was not aware of that.