Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"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...

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.

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.

"Similarly, and as discussed in more detail below, FBI OGC attorney Kevin Clinesmith made troubling statements demonstrating a blatant political bias against Trump. Clinesmith, who played a central role in the Page FISA process, on the day after Trump's election as President, stated to fellow FBI personnel, among other things, "viva le resistance,"²⁰¹ an obvious reference to those individuals opposed to Trump."  Durham Report Page 50

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.

"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. 

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

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.

Durham Report around page 50

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.

There is tons more, but as a last point, it was not by accident that Durham concluded the report with this quote:

"Nothing," former Attorney General Levi warned, "can more weaken the quality of life or more imperil the realization of the goals we all hold dear than our failure to make clear by words and deed that our law is not the instrument of partisan purpose."

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

What I am hinting at is that law enforcement SHOULD show a biased against people posing as criminals.

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.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

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.

You are quoting Politifact's opinion.  Fine.  My opinion is that the confirmation bias detailed by Durham was at least in part politically motivated.  I have the report to support my position, some few snippets of which I quoted above.  I think I am right and Politifact is wrong on this point.   

On second though, Politifact may not be "wrong" but they are being very tricky.  We agree that Durham talks about confirmation bias, and we all agree on the definition.  Politifact is drawing a false distinction between "confirmation bias" and what I would call "pure political bias."  The proper question I have been exploring in these posts is what motivated the confirmation bias.  I think there are two factors.  Politics and Trump's own actions.

Even if you disagree with my conclusions, surely you agree by now that this documentation of confirmation bias at the FBI is worth publishing, even if:

(a) no crimes were committed
(b) the underlying reason for the confirmation bias was not political (for the sake of argument).

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Except for the last "We'll stop it" comment, this is just shooting the breeze of two obviously intelligent people   It really can't be categorized as "official" law enforcement communication, at least in my opinion, These are just human beings after all. 

As bad as this looks, the intent of this entire thread, IMO, is no more than private chit-chat amongst coworkers that you or I could have had. Yes, I get that it would be alarming in this context, but they deserve a little grace never having seen this type of thing before. My understanding is that the DOJ agrees and that they have seen the light on this. Agents will have to become very PC, even with personal relationships with coworkers,

It is one item of context.  You pretty much have to skim the whole report to get a feel for the rest of the context.  I am convinced that the confirmation bias, whatever the motivation, documented by Durham must be minimized in law enforcement to the extent possible.  This alone makes the report valuable.

Of secondary importance, I am convinced that a portion (at least) of the confirmation bias apparent in the opening and prosecution of Crossfire Hurricane was politically motivated.   Whether I am right or wrong does not change the fact that the FBI failed to properly handle this matter.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"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. 

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 affect the outcome of the election.   

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I believe the FBI has shown that they agree with you and acted, but I am not an expert.

I think this is true.  Heads have rolled.  Protocols were put in place.  If it is enough, and whether it will stick...?  Beats me.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

You know guys, since 2015 I have warned that someone with a character as bad as Trump's is too dangerous to sit in the oval office regardless of their policies and we risk everything as a nation if we do it, which I certainly believe has been proven to be correct. I am baffled and scared that more people don't see it that way today.

It's particularly stunning that "evangelicals" seem to be the most clueless - the very people that should know better.

A bit of a non-sequitor?   I agree with the first part.   One of my core principles of course is the system being robust enough to withstand individual malfeasance and incompetence.  Even so, you used the word "risk", not the word "lost."  So I see your point.

James Lacey said it best.   He more or less said some time ago that the guardrails were sufficient to keep the Nation on the road during and immediately after the Trump years, but what about next time, when the vile and corrupt personage in the oval office is not a buffoon?

I think about that now and then, because highly intelligent and cruelly effective despots have arisen to lead great nations to ruin over and over again, throughout history.