The Forest that Durham himself acknowledged that there was good reason for the FBI to launch the investigation and that there was no overall criminal wrong doing at the FBI. Versus trees like that the Steel Dossier was the basis for the investigation.
And a single recommendation (in italics below) that was already in place - that position is the AG. Barr made a policy that investigations of senior administration members and the POTUS must be cleared by the AG. I think it gives a bit too much power to the AG. Barr is an example of a very politically biased AG who interfered with the release of the Mueller report, serving as a clear example of political bias. The IG and its report come close to being impartial and non-political and as note, have already disclosed much of the information in Durham's report. Read the full John Durham special counsel investigation report here - CBS News But much of the information disclosed in Durham's report had already been revealed in a 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department inspector general into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau. Though Durham had broader powers than the Justice Department's watchdog, he pursued prosecutions of just three people, two of whom were acquitted. The third, a former FBI lawyer, pleaded guilty. The only recommendation the special counsel made in his report was to institute a position to handle "politically sensitive investigations" and to make difficult decisions.
I just heard David Brooks make a very interesting point about the Durham Report. He said it was a sign that the system worked. You had an experienced prosecutor who did look in depth into an issue and while critical ultimately couldn't find any major wrong doing. Far from the Durham report being a scathing indictment of a broke system the report while pointing out problems actually reaffired the system.
Yes, that's a good thing. But at the same time, we are seeing the 'Twitter File' effect. There are two very different reactions: 1) Okay, there were problems, most of which we already know about from the IG report in 2019, and it didn't result in any serious criminal behavior. 2) The FBI is extremely corrupt. We are witnessing the continuation of two realities - one closer to the real one and one closer to the alternative facts (ALT-FACT) style of reality.
Of course. Instead the investigation should be evaluated on the ability of wingnuts to incorrectly cite its report in their reality-impoverished tweets.
also from Eli, via the NYSun: https://www.nysun.com/article/devas...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer For the last four years, the two watchdogs probing the FBI’s investigation of Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign have disagreed on whether the bureau’s initial investigation was properly predicated. The Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, concluded that it was. The standard for opening a full FBI investigation in 2016 was a low bar, and the bureau met it after Australian officials passed on information about an encounter with a low level campaign aid named George Papadopoulos. When Mr. Horowitz released his devastating report in 2019, U.S. special counsel John Durham issued a brief statement disagreeing with the inspector general’s assessment, but did not provide further elaboration. Now he has. “Our investigation gathered evidence that showed that a number of those closest to the investigation believed that the standard arguably had not been met,” Mr. Durham concludes. That standard, laid out in the attorney general guidelines, says that a full investigation can be opened if there is an “articulable factual basis” for launching such a probe. Many believed there was not. The FBI’s legal attaché to the United Kingdom, which was involved in the probe, texted one of the supervisory agents at the time to complain that the basis for the investigation was “thin.” This same official in a 2019 interview with Mr. Durham’s team said that the senior bureau official, Peter Strzok, who opened the investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane said, “There’s nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground.” Mr. Durham says his assessment was a red flag. He writes, “Strzok’s view would seem to dictate the opening of the matter as an assessment or, at most, as a preliminary investigation.” These distinctions are crucial. An assessment or preliminary investigation would have imposed reasonable limits on the FBI’s investigation, such as a shorter timeline and not using more invasive investigation techniques. Mr. Durham also said the decision to launch the full investigation at the end of July 2016 violated other FBI guidelines. For cases that infringe upon legitimate First Amendment activities, such as presidential campaigns, FBI guidelines instruct, “the choice and use of investigative methods should be focused in a manner that minimizes potential infringement of those rights.” Finally, the actual tip used to launch the probe was ambiguous and needed more scrutiny. Mr. Papadopoulos did not provide any specifics in his brief conversations with Australian diplomats. The referral to the FBI from those diplomats was deliberately vague. Mr. Durham writes that shortly after opening the investigation, the bureau “learned from interviewing the Australian diplomats that there were reasons to be unsure about what to make of the information from Papadopoulos.” Even more glaring, no one else from the intelligence agencies or the FBI had any evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign had colluded with Russia when the bureau opened the full investigation. Mr. Durham adds that the FBI’s decision to open the Trump investigation on the thinnest ground stood in sharp contrast to its approach to investigations into the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. The FBI senior leaders placed so many limits on its investigation of the Clinton Foundation for the final months of the campaign that virtually nothing was probed in this period. Another example involved a confidential human source for the FBI that made a small donation and nearly arranged a much larger one from a foreign power to the Clinton campaign. Instead of pursuing this lead, the bureau ended the investigation. All of these problems with the opening of Crossfire Hurricane are a scandal. What makes Mr. Durham’s report even more damning to the FBI is his meticulous documentation of how the bureau’s investigation consistently ignored or explained away leads and information that contradicted the Trump-collusion narrative. This negligence included the bureau’s failed efforts to corroborate the infamous Steele Dossier, a set of private intelligence reports paid for by the Clinton campaign that alleged Mr. Trump and his campaign were engaged in an elaborate conspiracy with Russia. That dossier became the primary evidence the bureau submitted to a secret surveillance court to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. FBI agents interviewed the main sub-source for the dossier, a Russian national named Igor Danchenko. Mr. Danchenko was the target of an unresolved counter-intelligence investigation from 2010. It was dropped when the bureau incorrectly surmised that Mr. Danchenko left the country. Mr. Durham’s review found “no indication” that the team investigating the Trump campaign ever tried to resolve the prior Danchenko espionage investigation before paying him as a confidential source. What’s more, the prior counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Danchenko was never shared with Justice Department attorneys responsible for applying for the surveillance warrant on Mr. Page. “There was a complete failure on the part of the FBI to even examine — never mind resolve — the serious counterespionage issues surrounding Steele’s primary subsource, Igor Danchenko,” Mr. Durham concludes. As a result of that failure, the FBI never properly considered whether the Steele dossier itself was Russian disinformation. Mr. Durham fails to give a definitive answer as to why the FBI’s leadership barreled ahead with an investigation that was going nowhere. He does, however, conclude that the bureau “discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia.” That narrative crippled the first two and a half years of Mr. Trump’s presidency and undermined the legitimacy of the 2016 election. Instead of informing the public that the speculation about Mr. Trump and Russia was without merit, the bureau’s leaders stoked a moral panic.
Looks like the right wing media is on double shifts trying to paint this as some big scandal. Keep in mind that ultimately what resulted in this was.....an investigation was opened....one that resulted in numerous charges being filed. Oh by the way, did you guys see that real scandal of Rudy trying to sell Pardons?
So, nothing new that we didn't already have from the IG report. Sure, it's great to address incorrect actions by the FBI. We didn't need 4 years and millions upon millions of dollars to figure this out. They screwed up on some of the warrants. One person even pled guilty to a crime. The two cases that went to court resulted in acquittals. We also found out that the FBI was reasonable in launching the investigation.
it surprises me you'd find FBI corruption and election interference to be a partisan issue. Spoiler it doesn't really surprise me
We talking about Russian interference as laid out in the Senate Report? Or we talking about how Durham said in his report the FBI investigation was warranted into Trump?
