An early peek at some of John Durham's report

Munchmasterman's Avatar
Your waiting is over.

Durham's investigation is aimed at reviewing the origins of the Russia inquiry.

And from my own source? How do you explain you not including the first paragraph of the story? Maybe that's why you posted your pile of shit post. Because you missed the content you demanded from me.

As seen in the first paragraph of the story, Durham eliminates an often used repub theory about the inquiry. That would certainly be in his report to specifically address that issue/theory.

Dec. 4, 2019 at 5:16 p.m. CST
"The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said."


None of the sources are anonymous to the reporters. And none of the principles of the stories denied any of the info reported.
That's usually a good indicator the information is correct.

So yes. I read the article. While it doesn't say specifically that info will be in Durham's report, why wouldn't it be?
Do you really think there would be no mention of the mentioned theory in Durham's report? A theory pushed by high ranking repubs and a theory he specifically addressed while communicating with the IG?

As far as more evidence goes, the fact Durham specifically mentioned that theory it means he probably feels he has a good handle on that. Based on the reasons I included, that's my opinion.

Expect anything? Why would I expect reasoned responses?
I can't even expect you to read the article correctly. Or honestly portray the article. It's obvious why you left the first paragraph out.


Did you actually even read your own article.

Please point to where information from Durham's upcoming report was released to Horowitz.

You're article specifically doesn't say that. It seems like wishful reading on your part.

From your own source.



I'll be awaiting where you point out where any "content" of a potential upcoming Durham report was shared.



No Typical leftist TDS sufferer.

You post crap like this OP and you actually expect reasoned responses. I call bullshit. Originally Posted by eccielover
Munchmasterman's Avatar
Looks like I saw what you missed. I would trade split hairs with you but I wouldn't have time for anything else considering your posts.
Who let YOU look at it? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Investigative reporters prove things.

Nobodies like ll are the waterboys for fake news. Rather than show examples that back up their bullshit, they run their mouths instead. Remember, ll has advocated links or articles (he commonly uses the phrase "cut and paste" when he should say "copy and paste") used in an attempt to show proof as worthless.
If something goes against what he said or believes it is fake news. A frequent poster of legal information, he doesn't know the difference between the burden of proof for criminal and civil trials.
Anyone who takes what he says at face value hasn't checked his posts.
Examples of my claims about him are available on request.

And by the same token, I add links and content to back up what I say.

Since you don't even know how to spell "lackey", it can't be expected you know what it means. Which you don't. My sources provide a service to me, not the other way around.

They are not the ones to "PROVE" ... they are reporting what someone said or something said. A "REPORT" is a "REPORT" and nothing more.

False Reports are now the substance of daily discussions and that's why the Reporters of "False Reporters" are working for Fake News organizations. Munchie is just carrying water for them. But's he's been their lacky for years. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Munchmasterman's Avatar
You are correct to a certain extent. There are black and white areas but there are a lot of gray areas too.
I agree that we could argue till the end of time what is "proof" and what isn't. So I'll change my statement to "let's see if the two reports confirm or cast doubt on my opinions" and yes, everything I and everybody else on this board posts is an opinion. Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Your claim to know proof from not-proof is complete and total bullshit. The source that proves my claim is your post. Chock full of fake-news, caps, and bullshit.
Dunning-Kruger effect runs rampant and unchecked.


No. You can. I know what it is and what it isn't.

With respect to the instant topic (OP), when the deranged bullshitters orchestrating the fraudulent, illegal "impeachment investigation" begin to get prosecuted for their lies under oath after they are subpoenaed before the Senate Trial before the Presiding Justice from the US Supreme Court who will find them in contempt for refusing to answer questions asked you will be informed what "proof" is when they insist upon their "Constitutional Rights" they have denied others through the fake process.

You will hear familiar phrases like .... "insufficient evidence"! And once it is determined by the assertion of THEIR RIGHTS that they knew all along that there were INALIENABLE RIGHTS then it will BE PROOF that their deception and lies WERE INTENTIONAL and not born from PURE IGNORANCE. Pisslousy will be firing staff members for "not informing her" thoroughly of the nuances and "legal technicalities" of "DUE PROCESS"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
Investigative reporters prove things.


My sources provide a service to me, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Wow - are we graced by an actual and proper investigative reporter with official "sources"?

I am impressed...
I B Hankering's Avatar
.

"I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened." - US Attorney John Durham
Jaxson66's Avatar
Does this all mean the population gets another chance to laugh through another forty minutes of Lindsay Graham screaming and squirming like he had a gerbil up his ass.

Same old conspiracy shit from the trump party. Durham report has only replaced the Horowitz report to be used as propaganda for the Fox opinion network. It’s going nowhere.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
Does this all mean the population gets another chance to laugh through another forty minutes of Lindsay Graham screaming and squirming like he had a gerbil up his ass.

Same old conspiracy shit from the trump party. Durham report has only replaced the Horowitz report to be used as propaganda for the Fox opinion network. It’s going nowhere. Originally Posted by Jaxson66



your life as a subject of His Regal Majesty the Lord Emperor Donald, Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse must be such a nightmare!


BBAHAHAAAAAAAA




I B Hankering's Avatar
Does this all mean the population gets another chance to laugh through another forty minutes of Lindsay Graham screaming and squirming like he had a gerbil up his ass.

Same old conspiracy shit from the trump party. Durham report has only replaced the Horowitz report to be used as propaganda for the Fox opinion network. It’s going nowhere.
Originally Posted by Jaxson66
.


The world will continue to turn no matter how far up your ass you have your head.



Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke ... validates complaints about “fake news”


Holy God, what a clown show the Trump-Russia investigation was....

Officials on the “Crossfire Hurricane” Trump-Russia investigators went to extraordinary, almost comical lengths to seek surveillance authority of figures like Trump aide Carter Page....

Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.”

There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points:

The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page.

Press figures have derided the idea that Steele was crucial to the FISA application, with some insisting it was only a “small part” of the application. Horowitz is clear:
We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.
Dim-retards are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report ratifies the major claims of the infamous “Nunes memo.”

As noted, Horowitz establishes that the Steele report was crucial to the FISA process, even using the same language Nunes used (“essential”). He also confirms the Nunes assertion that the FBI double-dipped in citing both Steele and a September 23, 2016 Yahoo! news story using Steele as an unnamed source. Horowitz listed the idea that Steele did not directly provide information to the press as one of seven significant “inaccuracies or omissions” in the first FISA application.

(Rolling Stone)
HedonistForever's Avatar

Your claim to know proof from not-proof is complete and total bullshit. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I claimed no such thing. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite, that everything I post is either my opinion or if I post an article from a writer, it is his or her opinion and I happen to agree with their opinion.


Now if you are claiming that everything you post is proof or a fact, you are full of bullshit.
HedonistForever's Avatar
I'm sure apologies to Nunes are being drafted as we speak. For those not familiar with the Nunes memo


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-memo/552191/


1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
Comey gave an interview saying "that wasn't his recollection". His recollection was that the majority of the information in the application did not involve the dossier which may have played a very small part in the application. The truth is that the first application that did not contain the dossier was rejected. It was only when the dossier was added to the application was it approved by the court and it was full of lies and Comey knew it was lies.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.


Horowitz confirmed this



The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
I'm sure apologies to Nunes are being drafted as we speak. For those not familiar with the Nunes memo


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-memo/552191/


1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
Comey gave an interview saying "that wasn't his recollection". His recollection was that the majority of the information in the application did not involve the dossier which may have played a very small part in the application. The truth is that the first application that did not contain the dossier was rejected. It was only when the dossier was added to the application was it approved by the court and it was full of lies and Comey knew it was lies.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.


Horowitz confirmed this



Originally Posted by HedonistForever



well. seems Jimmy Conehead is lying. he and McCabe pushed to include the "insignificant" dossier which was critical in getting the FISA warrant approved, you know .. after the first one was rejected.



Comey and McCabe fought to include Steele dossier in intelligence assessment on Russian interference

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...n-interference


by Jerry Dunleavy
| December 09, 2019 06:56 PM


Then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fought to include information from British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s dossier in the January 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, according to a Justice Department watchdog report.



But the CIA “expressed concern” about using the former MI6 agent’s salacious and unverified allegations, and the allegations ultimately did not make an appearance in the body of the text of the assessment of Russia’s activities during the 2016 election.



The detailed examination of the clash between the FBI and the CIA comes from an FBI intelligence section chief and a supervisory intelligence analyst who appeared in Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report about his Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation, which was released on Monday.



The CIA believed Steele’s dossier, which contained claims about Trump that, if true, could be used as blackmail, including a so-called pee tape, "was not completely vetted and did not merit inclusion in the body of the report.” The agency also dismissed Steele’s allegations as “internet rumor,” and the other intelligence agencies ultimately overruled efforts by Comey, McCabe, and the bureau to include Steele's work in the intelligence community assessment.


The revelations in Horowitz’s report appeared to put to rest long-simmering questions about whether it was Comey or intelligence officials such as former CIA Director John Brennan who pushed to include the Steele dossier in the high-profile assessment.



The assessment released on Jan. 6, 2017, concluded that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election” and that “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency” while “Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”



At the behest of President Barack Obama, members of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, with oversight from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, worked jointly to prepare the report. Horowitz said, “The FBI first shared Steele's reporting with other U.S. government intelligence agencies in December 2016” during the interagency drafting process. The FBI’s assistant director of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, and the FBI’s intelligence section chief both wrote to the CIA to describe Steele as “reliable," and Horowitz said, “Whether and how to present Steele's reporting” in the assessment was “a topic of significant discussion” among the drafters.



On Dec. 16, 2016, the bureau’s intelligence section chief emailed the FBI that McCabe “wants the [Steele] reporting included in the submission with some level of detail." When he asked McCabe if the FBI’s submission to the joint draft team should be limited to Russian interference or should also include the dossier’s allegations against Trump, “McCabe understood President Obama's request for the ICA to require the participating agencies to share all information relevant to Russia and the 2016 elections, and the Steele election reporting qualified at a minimum due to concerns over possible Russian attempts to blackmail Trump,” according to Horowitz’s report. The same day, the intelligence section chief sent then-special agent Peter Strzok, Priestap, and another key FBI official a draft of the FBI’s proposed submission to the assessment, warning that “the minute we put the [Steele allegations] in there, it goes from what you’d expect the FBI to be collecting in a counterintelligence context to direct allegations about collusion with the Trump campaign.”



On Dec. 17, 2016, Comey reviewed and approved the FBI’s draft and emailed FBI team members about a call he had with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper the night before.



“I informed the DNI that we would be contributing the [Steele] reporting (although I didn’t use that name) to the [Intelligence Community] effort,” Comey wrote. “I stressed that we were proceeding cautiously to understand and attempt to verify the reporting as best we can, but we thought it important to bring it forward to the IC effort.”



The CIA pushed back against the FBI’s attempt to include it in the body of the assessment.



On Dec. 28, 2016, McCabe emailed Clapper’s principal deputy to continue his push to include the Steele information, saying, “There are a number of reasons why I feel strongly that it needs to appear in some fashion in the main body of the reporting.”



McCabe told Horowitz he sought to include it because of Obama’s request for all relevant information, the fact that Steele had ”a good track record” with the FBI even if his allegations weren’t verified, and because Steele’s dossier was already circulating in the government and media, and so he wanted to head off any leaks.



When Horowitz asked Comey whether he remembered discussing his efforts to include the Steele dossier with any of the intelligence community’s leadership, Comey recounted a meeting with Clapper, Brennan, and then-NSA Director Mike Rogers in which he said he was told “that the IC analysts found it credible on its face and gravamen of it, and consistent with our other information, but not in a position where they would integrate it into the IC assessment.”



Comey conceded to Horowitz that Steele’s dossier was “not ripe enough, mature enough, to be in a finished intelligence product.”



Horowitz said that the final intelligence community assessment in January 2017 “included a short summary and assessment of the Steele election reporting” in an appendix and that the intelligence agencies concluded that there was "only limited corroboration of the source's reporting” and that Steele's allegations were not used “to reach analytic conclusions of the CIA/FBI/NSA assessment.”



Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has pinned the blame on Brennan. In March, he tweeted, "A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report."



Watergate sleuth Bob Woodward said in an interview this year, “I think it was the CIA pushing this.”



Brennan said in February 2018 that the dossier “did not play any role whatsoever in the intelligence community assessment that was done and that was presented to then-President Obama and then-President-elect Trump.” Brennan said that “there were things in that dossier that made me wonder whether they were in fact accurate and true” and said that “it was up to the FBI to see whether or not they could verify any of it.”



Trey Gowdy, a former Republican congressman, suggested earlier this year that Comey emails in December 2016 would be key to answering these questions.
HedonistForever's Avatar
I think it perfectly reasonable to assume that Durham asked AG Barr for permission to change his "investigative inquiry" to a criminal investigation because he has found criminal activity.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...ation-n1071731


Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal investigation

Attorney General William Barr's administrative review of what would become the Mueller investigation is now a criminal probe.
LexusLover's Avatar
Well, the OP screws it up again in calling it "An early peek at some of John Durham's report"

He's so confused with the details that he can't figure out if it's Durham or Horowitz's forthcoming report.

Originally Posted by eccielover
And it reminds me of most of the "reviews" posted on here ....

.... praising hot looking, multiple pop, 200 pounders who stink.
rexdutchman's Avatar
HoeHummer's Avatar
Originally Posted by rexdutchman