If we’ve only got one Russia guy, we’re probably not balancing things appropriately.
Woops, I meant Weiner’s computer. But it’s still strange that you’d have your #2 of a major organization handling an investigation and not doing things like, you know, organizing and managing people.
What? I didn’t say anything contrary to that.
I never said he was the only. I said he was the most experienced.
McCabe was Comey’s #2 when he himself, Comey, expected to be organizing and managing people. You may recall that Comey’s firing came rather out of the blue.
You certainly implied that the investigation was political. It didn’t become political until Trump fired Comey, and McCabe was forced to open an investigation into Trump’s actions with respect to Russian interference in 2016.
(Emphasis mine.)
If you read something that I said as such then I had no such intention. I said that Comey doesn’t read to me as being a good manager for a large organization. If you felt like there was more to it then there wasn’t.
Emphasis on the word “clearance rules”. You may need special clearances to investigate certain areas that those in top political levels - secretary of state, gang of 8, the President, etc. - have ready access too.
Nope, it did not. I’m not a spokesman for the Durham report. I was speculating on what might happen just like you all were doing with the Mueller report. How was your track record for predicting when and how Trump would go down?
It’s ridiculous to hold anyone to account for the results of either report, because we didn’t write it, didn’t know what’s going to be in it, etc. I seem to be the only one made to answer for it, though. Because I resisted the urge to go, “hur hur” every time someone said that THIS time Trump was going down, and he didn’t.
All that said, have you actually read the report? It’s pretty damning of the FBI, the DOJ, the Clinton campaign, etc. Most of the stuff people have been hyperventilating over here for the last 6 years turns out to be wrong, or exaggerated, or a political dirty trick by the Clintons or the Democrats.
Here’s the source for you. I suggest reading the conclusions at the end.
He lost in 2020 like I predicted.
I read it. IANAL, but AFAICT all the supposedly damning stuff was just Durham’s opinion. None of the facts, AFAICT, we’re damning of the FBI, DoJ, or even the Clinton campaign.
Personally, I recommend reading the evidentiary portions, in the middle.
Does Durham actually suggest anything the FBI could do differently in the future?
Yes. And they already made all the recommended changes when they were made by DOJ IG Horowitz in 2019.
Waste of time, waste of money. Durham’s politically motivated investigation ended up being a dud. Another Trump toadie that ends up looking the fool, along with Barr.
One investigation ended up with over 30 individuals indicted and many folks with felonies and actual prison time. The other brought charges against 3 individuals with one of them pleading guilty (no prison) and the other two being so weak they were found not guilty. Any guess which is which?
I misremembered this. Durham did indict them both and both were acquitted. Apologies for spreading bad information!
You were probably remembering all the futile attempts made to get a grand jury to indict Andrew McCabe.
That’s exactly what I was remembering. LOL, you know me so well!
Yet another reminder that the reason Trump didn’t “go down” was because Barr blocked any indictment from being brought and the entire Congressional Republican membership ran interference for Trump and Barr.
But thank you for pointing out that we were wrong for assuming the right were less corrupt than they turned out to be.
I seem to remember reading that Mueller actually made money from assets, while Durham cost money for no return.
Thank you, and this likely was the predicate fodder for the 2020 “stolen election” position that Trump and his supporters clung to.
I don’t think any of this is true. Can you quote some parts that you think support this argument?
Much of the report is the very same arguments that juries found unconvincing when Durham presented them at trial.
And it’s bonkers that he’s going after the FBI in the report when they were the supposed victims of every crime he prosecuted.
Well so…getting to the evidentiary portion of the document (p44), Durham starts by citing discussion between Strzok and Page where they basically say that Trump is an idiot and loathsome human.
Now, I would submit that there’s two ways to read that. One is that they’re politically opposed to the guy and they’re letting that override their objective reasoning or, two, that Trump can reasonably and objectively be described as an idiot and loathsome human being.
In Republican ideology, saying things as they are, unfiltered, not being nice to people just for the sake of being nice, etc. are all good things. If someone doesn’t want to be treated like an idiot then they shouldn’t act like an idiot; if they don’t want to go to jail then they shouldn’t break the law; etc. As Rush Limbaugh said, “If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”
As it is, Strzok and Page were Republicans and favorable to a Kasich win. They’re not opposed to Republican ideas, business-friendly ideas, anti-China ideas, etc. There’s no indication in the texts that Strzok nor Page have any particular policy opposition to Trump. Rather, they do discuss - and Durham quotes - public reporting about financial links between Trump and Putin, and statements by Trump that seem favorable towards Putin, which seems to be simply germane to their investigation.
At the moment in time of which we speak, Trump had been in court a variety of times for various pyramid-like schemes, had been caught by the FBI threatening a lawyer’s wife and kids whose job it was to collect a debt owed (see Kristopher Hansen), was best buds with Paul Manafort - a man who had been investigated by the FBI, hired Carter Page - a man who had been investigated by the FBI, and had himself served as an FBI informant - implying regular activities in criminal realms. I don’t, personally, see any particular reason to think that they were pre-judging him, without merit. It is very reasonable and above-board to claim Trump as a douche and loathsome human being, based on the information that was available at the time. I don’t see any issue with someone calling him that, if it’s factually predicated and if they’re still doing the good work of deciding - factually - whether that aspect of his personality lead him to work with Russia or not.
@Sam_Stone Do you have any particular objections to this analysis?
The FBI does not require its agents—nor would it be possible—to have no strong political or personal opinions. They are only required to ensure those opinions do not impact their work.
The revelation that they had contempt for Trump was an avoidable PR faux pas, not proof of a corrupt investigation.