Many programmers have had the experience of explaining a problem to someone else, possibly even to someone who knows nothing about programming, and then hitting upon the solution in the process of explaining the problem. In describing what the code is supposed to do and observing what it actually does, any incongruity between these two becomes apparent.
For disregarding moderator instructions to leave off with the hijacking in the post just above yours, I’m issuing a warning to you. It gives me no pleasure to do so, but our instructions must be taken seriously.
After a private conversation with Turek and some time to think it over, I’m persuaded that he simply missed the mod note and did not knowingly violate it. Accordingly, I’m reversing the warning I issued on March 2, 2023.
Being a member in good standing and one who has obviously carefully considered his posts for all this time (more than 20 years without a warning) should count for something. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Talk about getting the last word in after anybody stopped caring…
I’ll admit, I don’t remember the FBI lawyer being convicted of altering the email, but this article sort of lost over the fact that the rest of the high profile convictions that he went after ended an acquittal. Naturally, the mango Mussolini is already spouting off about how this acquits him of colluding with Russia.
Yeah, I saw the headlines today that said “Special Counsel slams FBI” instead of “Special Trump Counsel Has Jack Fucking Shit, Slams Door In Petulant Tantrum.”
Well, the day Sam Stone has been waiting for is finally here. Durham has, after 4 years, millions of dollars, one misdemeanor conviction, and 2 laughable prosecutions that he lost at trial, has had his report released to the public. Finally, the deep state conspiracy will be revealled.
Or it could be 306 pages of the partisan hackery we’ve all come to expect from Durham.
Durham was empowered to prosecute whoever he wanted to right? So why don’t they ask him why nobody is in jail? I know the answer, and I think they are close to getting it, but it would require them admitting that they have had this all wrong the whole time, and that ain’t happening.
I haven’t had much chance to read it so I’m only a dozen or so pages in.
So far, his principal argument is that if you compare the amount of implicit trust given to Hillary Clinton, by the FBI, it seems to have been larger than the amount of trust given to Trump. He hasn’t yet gone through his evidence, to demonstrate the truth of that argument.
That said, I’m not strongly opposed to the idea that it’s correct. But I feel like Mr. Durham is ignoring some context that would explain the discrepancy:
Trump might have already said a variety of bizarre, pro-Russia statements by this point in time, publicly (I haven’t checked yet). If so, that should be added to the initial evidentiary pile, not just the word of the Australian source, which is all that he indicates was used. I believe that there was more.
The Australian source was a reliable source, not some random crank off the Internet.
The FBI - and, specifically, Strzok and Comey - had a long history of investigating Clinton. She was, by this point in time, already well within their knowledge sphere and they probably had a pretty good sense for how much effort it’s worth spending on her. With Trump, that was not yet true.
And, he should note that both Comey and Strzok were Republicans so, regardless that they might have preferred a different Republican to take the office, there’s still no strong reason to think that they’d have any aggressive position against him. Strzok was also very negative towards Clinton and pretty much every other politician, in his texts. Disliking politicians is the norm for most regular people and Americans.
From my understanding, Trump was accused of working with foreign intelligence agents. Clinton is being accused by a foreign agent of using Trump’s own statements against him.
I’m not seeing any crime that the FBI would be able to investigate?
That said:
Though, I suppose, there is the question of how foreign agents would have known this information? Maybe it was obvious?
I do admire the set of gonads on Durham. Just the sheer gumption to conclude that the Mueller investigation, which resulted in 34 people indicted, multiple felony convictions, prison senences, and trial wins, should not have happened, while his “investigation” itself resulted in a grand total of one nisdemeanor conviction and two jury trial, both of wich he lost.
Thats some next level delusion and partisan hackery.
First, let me say that I’m not the sort to think that I either need to be with or against someone. I’ll defend Comey where I believe he deserves to be defended and attack him where I think he deserves to be attacked.
I’m not sure that Comey had the organizational qualities to successfully run a large organization, nor the calm demeanor necessary to handle surprises well.
My understanding of “the letter” is that Comey was mostly putting any politically sensitive investigation into the hands of McCabe and Strzok, rather than farming it out among the 10s of thousands of employees at his disposal. (And, granted, clearance rules might have limited his selection but I can’t imagine that there’s really only 4-5 people who can root around in the private lives of politicians.) McCabe was the second highest person in an organization and was also, personally, investigating Hillary Clinton and had her computer under his desk?
At any rate, the letter was written because they’d basically forgotten about the investigation and hadn’t moved on it. Comey seems to have over-reacted, when he was informed of that, because he wanted to defend McCabe from his failure in moving forward with the case, in an efficient way. (Or, at least, that’s their cover story and I can’t imagine that you’d come up with that as a cover story if you had something better to give.)
That’s not contrary to Durham’s charge, just more specific.
AIUI, they weren’t even regular jury trials, but grand jury proceedings. I guess most US Attorneys can indict a ham sandwich. Except John Durham.
As for the misdemeanor conviction, it wasn’t Durham’s work that uncovered the violation. It was the DOJ Inspector General – who filed his report in 2019. Durham just lifted it and included it in his own report.
Andrew McCabe was, as you point out, Comey’s #2. Obviously he trusted McCabe more than anyone else in the organization.
Peter Strzok was the most experienced FBI guy in All Things Russian. Who else would Comey have given these assignments to?
Your account ignores the fact that this investigation arose as a counter intelligence investigation out of comments made by George Papadopoulos to an Australian diplomat in May of 2016. It did not become an investigation of Trump until Trump fired Comey. It was McCabe who initiated the investigation into Trump – but that didn’t happen until after Trump was already president.
Comey wrote his letter to Congress on October 28, 2016, because during his ill-advised press conference in July 2016, he promised to keep Congress informed if anything more arose out of the email situation. He never dreamed a bunch of those emails would turn up on Huma Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner’s, computer and be discovered just days before the election.
Given his promise made at the July 2016 press conference and knowing the information would leak out of the FBI’s New York field office, he had no choice but to disclose the existence of the further investigation to Congress. And the rest, as they say, is history. But it sure didn’t happen the way you’re making it sound.
