The "Russian Hoax"

[Bootstrap]

Boot, are we reading the same report?

It's here:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

Were any of the claims I made false? If so, which ones?

[Bootstrap]

The report I read indicated the FBI/CIA gave into strong pressure not to investigate the Clinton campaign whilst they sent forward with strong pressure to find some kind of Trump malfeasance which didn’t exist.

I don't think that the Durham report actually demonstrates that the claims against Trump were wrong. I'm currently fairly confused by what it says about Clinton influence, I think I'm going to need some time to see people on all sides talk that one out. I will have to read the evidence he gives for this more carefully, I haven't really had time to read the full report, and there are sections I will need to take time to read carefully.

But it seems clear that whether to open a full investigation versus a preliminary one is the big issue in the report, as the quote shows. And he goes into great length to argue that not opening it as a preliminary investigation was a problem. I get that, but that doesn't tell us anything at all about relationships between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

And even Durham says an investigation should have been opened.

If the investigation reached the wrong conclusions, I do not yet see where Durham shows that. I agree with Durham that there were FISA violations involving Carter Page, and that this is a serious problem. But that's old news at this point.

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.

He may well be right. But that's very different from saying there were no grounds for opening the investigation. On the contrary, Durham says they should have opened an investigation.

[ohio jones]

i get that, but that doesn't tell us anything at all about relationships between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

Is it supposed to? This looks to me like an investigation of the investigation, not an investigation of what the investigation was investigating. But I might have to investigate that further.

[Bootstrap]

i get that, but that doesn't tell us anything at all about relationships between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

Is it supposed to? This looks to me like an investigation of the investigation, not an investigation of what the investigation was investigating. But I might have to investigate that further.

I think you are probably right. But it takes me a while to read and digest a detailed 306-page report. I'm still chewing on it. Some people seem to be able to read a report like this almost instantly, I don't have that skill.

[Josh]

I've spent too much of my life reviewing statements of work in my "spare time" where I have to burn through 200+ pages a day and make sure I don't miss one problematic word in one page that will sink the whole project.

[Robert]

That's quite simply not true, even according to the Durham Report. Despite the Really Big Letters.

More in the next post. But big letters are not proof of anything.

Guys, it is a meme. Lighten up a little.

[Robert]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the Durham Report that actually contradicts the findings of the Mueller Report. Is there? If so, what?

It is not supposed to contrast it. It is a totally different investigation.

Durham was to investigate to se if the FBI handled the Crossfire Hurricane investigation correctly. He seems to have found they did not and stated it was totally mishandled.

[Szdfan]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the Durham Report that actually contradicts the findings of the Mueller Report. Is there? If so, what?

It is not supposed to contrast it. It is a totally different investigation.

Durham was to investigate to se if the FBI handled the Crossfire Hurricane investigation correctly. He seems to have found they did not and stated it was totally mishandled.

But he's also not recommending any substantial changes to how the FBI does things. Isn't that a bit odd?

[Josh]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the Durham Report that actually contradicts the findings of the Mueller Report. Is there? If so, what?

It is not supposed to contrast it. It is a totally different investigation.

Durham was to investigate to se if the FBI handled the Crossfire Hurricane investigation correctly. He seems to have found they did not and stated it was totally mishandled.

But he's also not recommending any substantial changes to how the FBI does things. Isn't that a bit odd?

Was he asked to do so? “How to reform the FBI” is a pretty broad topic and one that would need more than just a special counsel who spent all his time first finding out of the FBI mishandled an important investigation.

[GaryK]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the Durham Report that actually contradicts the findings of the Mueller Report. Is there? If so, what?

It is not supposed to contrast it. It is a totally different investigation.

Durham was to investigate to se if the FBI handled the Crossfire Hurricane investigation correctly. He seems to have found they did not and stated it was totally mishandled.

But he's also not recommending any substantial changes to how the FBI does things. Isn't that a bit odd?

Here is what Durham says about it.

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."46

The underlined and bolded seems pretty substantial to me. I'm taking from this and the rest of the executive summary that there was a significant departure from the FBI's guiding principles and what is needed is a "renewed fidelity to the old" rules.

Whether or not people are going to be held accountable for departing from following the existing rules is yet to be seen. I have my doubts.