The "Russian Hoax"

[GaryK]

So there's really not much substance to this report. Over the years, a lot of claims were made about what it would find. This report doesn't seem to contain any bombshells.

These are the same things people like Strozk and McCabe are saying on left leaning media. This seems to overlook things like the following found in the executive summary.

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.

This seems pretty significant to me. For this to be done by the FBI and then to call it not substantive seems really dismissive and is pretty much in line with the talking points of leftist partisans.

[GaryK]

This part of the executive summary also seems really substantive. I've bolded and underlined some of the things I found substantive.

The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane
during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated
intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving
possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign. As
described in Section IV.B, in the eighteen months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was
required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the
election. In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution. In one such
matter discussed in Section IV.B.l, FBI Headquarters and Department officials required
defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to
be the targets of foreign interference. In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after
one of its longtime and valuable CHSs went beyond what was authorized and made an improper
and possibly illegal financial contribution to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity
as a precursor to a much larger donation being contemplated. And in a third, the Clinton
Foundation matter, both senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how those
matters were to be handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months
leading up to the election. These examples are also markedly different from the FBI' s actions
with respect to other highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source
pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin so as to
divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server. Unlike the
FBI's opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw,
uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan,
the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical
personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information. This lack of
action was despite the fact that the significance of the Clinton plan intelligence was such as to
have prompted the Director of the CIA to brief the President, Vice President, Attorney General,
Director of the FBI, and other senior government officials about its content within days of its
receipt. It was also of enough importance for the CIA to send a formal written referral
memorandum to Director Corney and the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's
Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action.

[GaryK]

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 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. Having said that, I'm wondering if there would have even been a Mueller (Special Counsel) investigation had the FBI followed proper procedures and rules in the Crossfire Hurricane one.

[ohio jones]

In fact, during the period of time in question, Republicans were running the White House, Justice Department, Supreme Court, FBI, Senate, and House of Representatives and there were no Democrats holding positions of power anywhere in the government.

While they were not the majority party and thus did not occupy the top offices, to say that no Democrats held positions of power is more than a slight exaggeration.

[Ken]

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 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. Having said that, I'm wondering if there would have even been a Mueller (Special Counsel) investigation had the FBI followed proper procedures and rules in the Crossfire Hurricane one.

The questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 election were right out in the open and not something that the FBI ginned up out of thin air. If you go back to 2016 there was a huge amount of discussion of the topic in the media during and after the election. Crossfire was only a very small part of it. For example, Obama's outgoing National Security Advisor was warning Trump and the Trump administration about illicit contacts between Russian agents and the incoming National Security Advisor Flynn. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-fl ... ilty-plea/ So there was lots and lots of smoke around Russia and plenty of reasons for the FBI or other agencies to investigate Russia had Crossfire gone in a different direction.

What lead directly to the Mueller investigation was Trump's ill-advised decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, which lead to his own Justice Department deciding to appoint a special prosecutor. It is probably more accurate to speculate about whether the Mueller investigation would have happened if Trump had not fired Comey. Probably not in my opinion. There would still have been an investigation, but it would have just been an ordinary DOJ investigation like hundreds of others and nowhere as high profile.

[GaryK]

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 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. Having said that, I'm wondering if there would have even been a Mueller (Special Counsel) investigation had the FBI followed proper procedures and rules in the Crossfire Hurricane one.

The questions about Russian meddling in the 2016 election were right out in the open and not something that the FBI ginned up out of thin air. If you go back to 2016 there was a huge amount of discussion of the topic in the media during and after the election. Crossfire was only a very small part of it. For example, Obama's outgoing National Security Advisor was warning Trump and the Trump administration about illicit contacts between Russian agents and the incoming National Security Advisor Flynn. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-fl ... ilty-plea/ So there was lots and lots of smoke around Russia and plenty of reasons for the FBI or other agencies to investigate Russia had Crossfire gone in a different direction.

What lead directly to the Mueller investigation was Trump's ill-advised decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, which lead to his own Justice Department deciding to appoint a special prosecutor. It is probably more accurate to speculate about whether the Mueller investigation would have happened if Trump had not fired Comey. Probably not in my opinion. There would still have been an investigation, but it would have just been an ordinary DOJ investigation like hundreds of others and nowhere as high profile.

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

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.

[Ken]

In fact, during the period of time in question, Republicans were running the White House, Justice Department, Supreme Court, FBI, Senate, and House of Representatives and there were no Democrats holding positions of power anywhere in the government.

While they were not the majority party and thus did not occupy the top offices, to say that no Democrats held positions of power is more than a slight exaggeration.

There were no Democratic politicians in the chain of command that led to the Mueller investigation or any of the other investigations into the 2016 election.

Which Democrat could have launched an investigation into the 2016 election in the spring of 2017? Can you name a single one?

The FBI, the DOJ, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and every other governmental body with investigative powers were all in the hands of Republicans. No Democrats had any power or authority to launch any kind of investigation at all until 2019 after the 2018 mid-terms when Democrats retook the House and that is when they eventually launched the Ukraine extortion investigation that lead to Trump's first impeachment. Which was completely separate from the Russia investigation.

[Ken]

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

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.

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 and were reported at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

The FBI reportedly began a criminal investigation into Manafort in 2014, shortly after Yanukovych was deposed during Euromaidan. That investigation predated the 2016 election by several years and is ongoing. In addition, Manafort is also a person of interest in the FBI counterintelligence probe looking into the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

On January 19, 2017, the eve of Trump's presidential inauguration, it was reported that Manafort was under active investigation by multiple federal agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director of National Intelligence, and the financial crimes unit of the Treasury Department. Investigations were said to be based on intercepted Russian communications as well as financial transactions. CNN reported in September 2017 that Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI "before and after the election ... including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump." The surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of United States.

[GaryK]

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

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.

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

The FBI reportedly began a criminal investigation into Manafort in 2014, shortly after Yanukovych was deposed during Euromaidan. That investigation predated the 2016 election by several years and is ongoing. In addition, Manafort is also a person of interest in the FBI counterintelligence probe looking into the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

On January 19, 2017, the eve of Trump's presidential inauguration, it was reported that Manafort was under active investigation by multiple federal agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director of National Intelligence, and the financial crimes unit of the Treasury Department. Investigations were said to be based on intercepted Russian communications as well as financial transactions. CNN reported in September 2017 that Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI "before and after the election ... including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump." The surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of United States.

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.

[Ken]

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

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

The FBI reportedly began a criminal investigation into Manafort in 2014, shortly after Yanukovych was deposed during Euromaidan. That investigation predated the 2016 election by several years and is ongoing. In addition, Manafort is also a person of interest in the FBI counterintelligence probe looking into the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

On January 19, 2017, the eve of Trump's presidential inauguration, it was reported that Manafort was under active investigation by multiple federal agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director of National Intelligence, and the financial crimes unit of the Treasury Department. Investigations were said to be based on intercepted Russian communications as well as financial transactions. CNN reported in September 2017 that Manafort was wiretapped by the FBI "before and after the election ... including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump." The surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, before Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of United States.

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.