Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

What I highlighted above is true.  Thank goodness.  Otherwise the nation would not survive the incompetence of Trump and Biden, yet here we are surviving, although with some economic pain.

You are wrong about my views about the subject of the Durham report.  Intentionally wrong?  You tell us.  I have posted many times that the press and Ds lied to the public about the whole Russian collusion story.   In comments to Rod, I compared the Russian collusion myth to the Big Lie of a stolen 2020 election.   These two huge lies foisted by the media were the centerpiece of my argument that at least on political matters that the editorial staff of CNN, NYT, WaPo and the like is no better than Fox.   They all have run with extraordinary lies that advance an agenda.   

I will admit that James, Rod and the Dominion trial have gotten me to soften that stance a bit.  CNN, NYT, WaPo are not qualitatively as brash with their favored lie as Fox was.   Still, these outlets' endorsement of the Russian collusion myth from 2016 to the release of the Mueller report should live in infamy and shame forever.

I have also posted my disdain for the politicization of the FBI at the time.  If and when justice is served to the likes of Peter Strzok, I will be pleased.   But only if justice is served after due process, in other words only if the check and balances of our beautiful system are observed.

You surely knew all of this from my many posts, unless you are suffering from memory loss?  Jim

Jim,
Here are the EIGHT CONVICTIONS/GUILTY PLEAS resulting from the Mueller Probe:
Manafort(influence peddling Ukraine/Russia))
Cohen (lying for Trump,etc)
Papadopoulos (lying about Russian contacts)
Pinedo (Selling bank account numbers to Russians)
van der Zwaan (lying to investigators)
Stone (lying,witness tampering)
Gates (lying, conspiracy)
Flynn (lying to FBI)
https://www.axios.com/2019/11/15/trump-associates-convicted-mueller-investigations
Here are the convictions from the Durham probe, claimed by Trump to reveal the "crimes of the century!:
ZERO
Oh, one low level guy plead guilty to submitting one bogus email(wow!)
Jim, being a lawyer, one would think you, of all people, can appreciate the differences...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Trump surrounded himself with unsavory characters.  No doubt about it.  

None of these Mueller convictions related to collusion between the Trump camp and the Russians to sway the outcome of the election.  The Mueller report found no collusion.   So you are mixing apples and oranges. 

Even so, the press ran with breathless collusion stories for three years.  I can provide 100s of examples without even trying.  The press was either incompetent, or in on the lie.   I think they were incompetent and did absolutely no diligence to vet the Steele Dossier and other collusion foundations.  On the other hand, Fox was in on the Big Lie in 2020.  That is one significant difference, but hardly an excuse for supposedly the best journalistic staffs of the free world to blindly run with a fabricated story.  Subsequent convictions for unrelated crimes do not change that conclusion. 

The bipartisan congressional committee that evaluated Russian interference in the 2016 election concluded:
"the committee concludes that Russia conducted a sophisticated and aggressive campaign to influence the U.S. election to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and that folks on Team Trump were more than happy to accept help from the Russians. But what's really important about that conclusion is that it is a bipartisan one. It is endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans."
"This report is, to a large extent, something that reaches the same conclusion that Mueller did on the question of Russia's interference. And the committee didn't draw a conclusion on whether the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia. What the committee did instead was lay out the facts that they found and then kind of leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. Some committee Republicans, in an annex to the report, declared that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded. Democratic members, in contrast, called Russia's actions and the Trump team's openness to them, quote, "one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats in modern American history." So there was a bit of a bipartisan divide on that matter."
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903616315/senate-releases-final-report-on-russias-interference-in-2016-election
So, I believe the Democrats take on this is correct and you evidently believe the Republicans on this one.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Seems Rich doesn't want to answer my question concerning his original posting.

Durham Report: Two indictments. Two trials. Two seperate 12 person juries unanimously rejected them.

Four years and seven million dollars for what?

Get a load of Jim Jordan's "whistleblowers":
First: "“These are not whistleblowers,” Plaskett shot back. “The law has not determined they are whistleblowers. His attorney is just asserting that.”"
1, "Allen, an FBI staff operations specialist, had his security clearance suspended in January 2022 after voicing support for the January 6, 2021, insurrection of the US Capitol, according to a copy of the suspension letter sent to Allen and obtained by CNN."
"The FBI officially revoked Allen’s security clearance on May 3 and listed a variety of reasons for doing so, including a September 29, 2021, email in which Allen called on FBI officials to exercise “extreme caution and discretion in pursuit of any investigative inquiries or leads pertaining to the events of” January 6, according to a copy of the letter."
"Allen also claimed to not find open source information about a subject who was allegedly involved in criminal activity at the Capitol on January 6, but a separate FBI employee later found that the subject in question physically assaulted Capitol Police officers during the attack."
2. "Friend had his security clearance revoked by the FBI on May 16, according to the letter obtained by CNN. In explaining its decision, the FBI revealed that Friend “entered FBI space and downloaded documents from FBI computer systems to an unauthorized removable flash drive” on September 3, 2022. Friend also participated in “multiple, unapproved media interviews, including an interview with a Russian government news agency” and recorded a meeting with FBI management that may have violated Florida state law, the FBI wrote.'
3. "Suspended FBI agent Garret O’Boyle has not revealed his direct disclosures or FBI suspension notice to House Democrats, according to transcripts reviewed by CNN. When asked about his allegations against the FBI during his closed-door interview with the weaponization subcommittee earlier this year, O’Boyle said they were confidential."
4. "The fourth individual testifying on Thursday is Tristan Leavitt, the president of Empower Oversight – an organization that is legally representing a series of whistleblowers who are in communication with Congress, including Friend."
"Leavitt previously worked in the Office of the Special Counsel under Trump, where he says he helped reform the office’s whistleblower disclosure program. He also worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee under former chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican – including on the “Operation Fast and Furious” investigation – as well as served on the House Oversight Committee under former chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, where he worked on the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/18/politics/whistleblower-hearing-jim-jordan/index.html
Maybe Durham would have better served the country by investigating them...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Jim:

I've read some of the report now, and a lot of commentary.   The Durham Report was definitely worth 7 million dollars, whether it resulted in convictions or not.  It does a good job of exposing biased top level decision making at the FBI, decisions made with the encouragement of the Democrats in power at the time.  This bias resulted in the unwarranted investigation of  a fictitious Trump - Russia collusion story.   The FBI ignored their own checks and protocols in the rush to investigate and prove collusion, a lie that was spoon fed to them.  The FBI decision to institute Crossfire Hurricane was clearly biased, at best.   

As you know the collusion story dominated the press for three years, resulted in an impeachment (but not for any collusion), and in many ways hampered the Trump presidency.

I get it that many people hate Trump, I also understand that he brings this sort of thing upon himself.  He is his own worst enemy.   But put that aside if possible, and look at this objectively.  The FBI, one political party, the DOJ, and the press nearly took down a US president on fabricated pretenses.   The conclusions very well detailed in the Durham report are well worth 7 million dollars.   This report should scare anyone who can summon the objectivity needed to put Trump out of the discussion for a moment.  The FBI, DOJ, and one political party must not be permitted to act as they did, even if one believes the target "deserved it" in this instance.

Jim

"Durham’s long-awaited, 306-page report slams the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe as deeply flawed. But Durham’s investigation into the origins of that probe resulted in few criminal charges, and the release of his report is unlikely to offset his high-profile failures in court. He charged just three defendants during his four-year investigation; juries quickly acquitted two of them, while a third pleaded guilty and avoided prison time."
"Durham’s report stops just short of saying that political bias drove the FBI’s decisions, saying that while there was evidence of strong political views on the part of some investigators, the FBI’s handling of the Trump probe exhibited clear “confirmation bias” in favor of a likely plot by the Russians."
"Many of the findings in Durham’s report echo the conclusions of a report issued in 2019 by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which found the FBI badly botched its handling of secret surveillance applications for Carter Page, an energy analyst who served for a time on a Trump campaign advisory board."
"As a result of the inspector general’s report and a broader examination of the FBI’s handling of surveillance requests, FBI Director Chris Wray ordered dozens of changes to the bureau’s procedures, auditing and training for submissions to the closed-door court that issues such warrants."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/15/durham-report-faults-fbis-trump-russia-probe-00096978
In other words, the Inspector General's report already addressed the issues that Durham merely reiterated to a large extent and have already been addressed  and corrected by the FBI. Durham's 7 million dollar "report" is a total waste of money...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Agreed - Trump is a horrible person.  My point and Durham's point is that The FBI opened and prosecuted Crossfire Hurricane with overt bias.  The press was complicit after the fact and amplified the error, thus abdicating their duties to the nation.  The Ds motivated it, but even I am not naïve enough to expect otherwise from a political party or campaign. We as a nation must take steps to assure that this sort of attack almost never happens.   The failure to prove criminal conduct gives blind partisans a cheap victory, but it is hardly dispositive.  Hopefully no rational person concludes that overt political bias in the FBI is OK, so long as they do not cross the line into criminal activity!

Jim and Russ - I know that you are not "ends justify the means no matter what" guys, and that you appreciate the big picture.  Although your choice of words Russ, "that is all well and good" does make it sound like you don't think the bias demonstrated in the opening and prosecution of the investigation by the FBI is that big of a deal, because Trump is such a scoundrel.   As you know, this is a dangerous way to think.  Next time it will not be Trump who is subjected to a biased attack by a politicized FBI.

Rod - I personally trust my own assessment more than the partisan writer at Politico.   Have you read the report, or at least the summary portions?   7 million is a small sum compared to the crap we spend money on as a nation.   I don't have enough zeroes after the decimal point in my keyboard to type how insignificant this expenditure is.  I think this could be the best 7 M the government spends this year.    Jim

"Next time it will not be Trump who is subjected to a biased attack by a politicized FBI."
You got that WRONG and I don't mean that the FBI is going to have a political bias in the future; it won't and hasn't had such a bias.. Both the Durham report and the Inspector General's report found a "conformational bias" and NOT a political one. For those who don't understand the difference, it means there were those in the FBI who looked at Trump's comment like "Russia if you're listening, help find the 30,000 missing Hillary emails, etc" or his subsequent actions with Putin in Helsinki or his campaign wanting to listen to the Russians about their "dirt on Hillary" and then concluded where's there's smoke there's fire and that biased some of their approaches to investigating Trump. It was NOT based upon a political leaning on the Democratic side versus the Republican side or anything akin to it. 
NOW DO YOU FINALLY GET IT?
That said, other than stated as such opinion pieces "in the press", I didn't see biased reporting other than what conformational bias their may have been and that was prompted by Trump's own words and deeds and not by a political bias in much the same manner as in the FBI...

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, I am well aware of the different types of bias. Since you won't listen to me, perhaps you will listen to Durham.  I doubt it though.  Your position is clearly quite firmly held.  Confirmation bias (not conformation) means that the FBI was confirming a pre-believed conclusion and thus blinded to contrary evidence.  It is disingenuous to suggest that this bias was not at least in part politically motivated.  The context was entirely political.  I have acknowledged in the past that Trump brings this sort of thing on himself because he says such stupid shit.  I have said that he is his own worst enemy in this thread, so I do get your point. 

But no need to go all-caps on me.   I'll post some quotes from the report in a minute.  If you continue to deny that the investigation was at least in part politically motivated I will indeed question your motivation.   But I won't go all caps on you!   Gimme a minute.  Two or three posts to follow.

Jim, First, I do know it's "confirmation bias" but the auto spell checker on my computer kept putting in "conformational" bias instead. 
"Durham's report emphasized the role of confirmation bias in the investigation, rather than political bias. This meant that as the FBI investigated the Trump campaign, the agency "discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support" the collusion narrative, Durham wrote.2.'
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/17/durham-report-criticized-elements-of-fbis-investig/#:~:text=Durham's%20report%20emphasized%20the%20role,the%20collusion%20narrative%2C%20Durham%20wrote.

Originally Posted by James Brown

For example, Peter Strzok ts9 and Lisa Page 190 were directly involved in matters relating to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane. Strzok was the Agent who both wrote and approved the electronic communication opening the matter from the very start as a full investigation rather than an assessment or preliminary investigation. At the time, Page was serving as Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's Special Assistant, and, according to Strzok, it was McCabe who directed that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation be "opened immediately" after information described more fully below was received from Australian authorities in late July 2016. 191 Over a period of months prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, Strzok and Page had exchanged numerous messages, which are already in the public domain and express a very clear prejudice against Trump. For example:

(Lots of very political texts - these ones are particularly political - Jim)

Strzok: Oooh, TURN IT ON, TURN IT ON!!! THE DOUCHE BAGS ARE ABOUT TO COME OUT. You can tell by the excitable clapping.

Page: And wow, Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche.

Strzok: Hi. How was Trump, other than a douche?

Page:  Trump barely spoke, but the first thing out of his mouth was "we're going to win soooo big." The whole thing is like living in a bad dream. 196

Strzok:  Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his Presidency would be. 197

Page:  Have we opened on him yet? Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumpputin-yes it-s-really-a-thing Opened on Trump? 

(Later - Jim)

Page: [Trump's] not going to become president, right? Right?!

Strzok: No. No, he's not. We'll stop it.

Those were private emails and not internal FBI policies and procedures. "Mr Strzok and Ms Page were removed from the inquiry once their August 2016 messages came to light.
"Didn't' Trump also "out Page"? 
See:   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50634645

Originally Posted by James Brown

The Durham report details politically motivated confirmation bias in the opening, and continued prosecution of the Crossfire Hurricane operation.   The fact that Trump's actions drew attention to himself is a sidelight and distraction.  At best Trump's actions can only justify the FBI's initial attention.   If this investigation were not so flawed, that initial attention would have been followed up by examination of all evidence, both supporting and contradicting the possibility of Russian collusion.  In Durham's opinion, and he is very thorough, absent the clear confirmation bias exhibited at the top of the FBI, a full investigation would never have been authorized.

This is the key thing.  The FBI would not have authorized and prosecuted a full investigation if they had considered the available contrary evidence.  It really does not matter whether Trump's actions created the bias, or whether there was pre-existing political motivation.  I think there was both.   But this failure to consider contrary evidence due to confirmation bias almost brought down a duly elected president!   

I think that political bias dominated the confirmation bias equation, but even if this bias was 90% Trumps' own damn fault and 10% political bias, the FBI still opened and prosecuted the investigation for years without following proper protocols.  The press was complicit after the fact.  No Russian collusion existed and Mueller demonstrated that.   This is not good.  It is apparently impossible for you guys to separate Trump from what the FBI and the press did to the US, and recognize the flaws in this investigation no matter who the target might be.

"No Russian collusion existed and Mueller demonstrated that."
That's the equivalent of Trump saying he was exonerated by the Mueller report. Trump was not exonerated by Mueller who concluded he didn't have enough evidence of collusion to bring charges and that's not the same thing or even close to it.
You can advance your opinion that the Trump Russia investigation was politically motivated all you want but that is not what either the Durham report or the Inspector General's report concluded. 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Actually, in the United States, when a prosecutor say that he does not have the evidence to bring charges that is the closest the target of an investigation ever gets to exoneration.   It is functionally the same thing.  I have not read the Mueller report, but I do not recall any "almost there" evidence of collusion.  In my opinion, Trump was indeed effectively exonerated of the specific charge that his campaign actively colluded with Russian intelligence to effect the outcome of the election.   

"Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells Congress"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

Originally Posted by James Brown

I just Googled around a bit, according to NPR and some other sources that are not right biased, "The Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign."  https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706385781/mueller-report-finds-evidence-of-russian-collusion

No one denies that the Russians, Chinese, and so on try to mess with our elections.  Crossfire Hurricane was started to investigate active collusion, and Mueller did not find any evidence of collusion.   Yet he does not expressly "exonerate" Trump.  Ok, it is possible that Trump colluded with Russian Intelligence, even though the FBI could find no evidence of this, so Mueller does have the "out" of denying exoneration.  Like I said, this is what prosecutors do.   

Jim, you need to be specific: "He concluded that Russia had interfered in the election with the intention of benefitting Mr Trump's campaign."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778