Meanwhile, Barr elevates Durham to Special Council!!!!

Let's see, Attorney General William Barr appointed Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham as special counsel to investigate the origins of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

This is an easy one. The investigation started when then candidate Trump says during a press conference. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”


Trump's own actions and the actions of his campaign prompted the investigation. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Yeah, a really, really dumb thing to say but did Trump or anybody on his team work with Russia to conspire, to interfere in the election and the answer is a resounding NO because nobody under Trump, who couldn't personally be prosecuted, was prosecuted by Mueller for " that crime " and never even hinted that if Trump wasn't immune from prosecution, that he had enough evidence to prove his case in a court of law because apparently, all he had was that dumb remark which could and did get him impeached but it wasn't a prosecuteable crime that I can see.


But I think that if you believe that is the "essence" of the Durham report, that is naive at best and wishful thinking.


What Durham will be looking at is whether the investigators broke the law not whether there was sufficient evidence to open the investigation. I think that has sufficiently been proven by the IG Horowitz report and others.


It's what happened then that is in question and we already have one legal determination that council for the FBI broke the law by illegally altering a document that was to be presented to the FISA court to justify the continuation of the investigation.


LITERALLY everybody involved in the investigation has been asked, "if you knew then what you know now, would you have signed those warrants" and to a person, the answer is NO.


So from that point on and the fact that the discredited ( by no less than the New York Times ) Steele dossier was used, the investigation went no where ending in a document, the Mueller report, which couldn't stand up to scrutiny under cross examination.


There are any number of people in the FBI and DOJ that did things wrong, in my opinion out of bias, but that is just to hard to prove in a court of law apparently considering Peter Strzoks part in all this, that will be held to account for their actions or not when the Durham report is released if ever because unless there are indictments, we may never hear another word about the Durham report.



And as to the possibility of Biden firing Durham, he can't, only the new AG can do that and for specific reasons such as misconduct, dereliction of duty or conflict of interest which the AG must document in writing. A high threshold indeed.


And if the Republicans keep the Senate, you can be sure if the Durham report isn't released to the public, the Senate will and will hold hearings on the findings and they will continue to dig into possible corrupt acts of Joe Biden whether in office or out.


Joe Biden's first 100 days might not be all that he imagined.

Keep dreaming HF. No one cares what Durham comes up with. He reports to the AG (well actually a deputy) and he will be bound by the AG, who can tell him what and where he can go with his investigation. As we saw with Mueller, they are not independent counsels any longer. The AG has plenty of control over what the nature and extent of the investigation.

You dream big man. I give you that but the substance is a little light.

the AG made durham special counsel in october weeks before the election. some people in the internetverse thought this was an unusual move.

No one cares what Durham comes up with... Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You said that already. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Lots of people care. Spying on a political campaign is a big deal! Only 3rd world countries tolerate that kind of bullshit.

It's sad there are people like you who are willing to break all the rules of fair play to gain power. And then act like it's no big deal.

Who broke the rules? What's sad are people who will misrepresent information to appear to back up their bullshit.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...a-spied-his-c/

People like you are lying about election fraud. Just like in a 3rd world country.
Just more gum flapping with no evidence.

You said that already. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Lots of people care. Spying on a political campaign is a big deal! Only 3rd world countries tolerate that kind of bullshit.

It's sad there are people like you who are willing to break all the rules of fair play to gain power. And then act like it's no big deal. Originally Posted by lustylad

Who broke the rules? What's sad are people who will misrepresent information to appear to back up their bullshit.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...a-spied-his-c/ Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I said "spying on a political campaign is a big deal". Care to disagree with that statement?

Trump's 2016 campaign was spied on. That's a proven fact. The spying continued through his inauguration and into his first year in office. Also a proven fact.

I didn't say odumbo was CAUGHT directing the spying (emphasis on "caught"). That's the narrow claim that your biased Politifact dipshits deemed false.

But it has been proven that odumbo knew about the spying based on that infamous WH meeting on January 5, 2017.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08...ump-operation/

Of course, Nixon didn't know about the "plumbers" who broke into the DNC Watergate headquarters and planted a bug on Larry O'Brien's phone on June 17, 1972... did he, munchy?

Was that a big deal? The Watergate break-in? Were you still in diapers when that happened?

Here's the button the dim-retards sported afterwards. Seems like spying on a political campaign was a big deal back then!

You said that already. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Lots of people care. Spying on a political campaign is a big deal! Only 3rd world countries tolerate that kind of bullshit.

It's sad there are people like you who are willing to break all the rules of fair play to gain power. And then act like it's no big deal. Originally Posted by lustylad

No one spied on Trumps campaign. That’s the big right wing lie. Ranks up there with massive voter fraud, right wing being censored, masks kill people too and other crazy shit they feed their base who is blissfully stupid.

In reality, no one really cares about Durham’s investigation. If someone lied, prosecute em. They in fact did that with one FBI lawyer and people shrugged and moved on because no one cares

Paranoia strikes deep.

Into your lives it will creep.

It starts when you’re always afraid.

Step out of line, Trump calls you a loser on Twitter!

the AG made durham special counsel in october weeks before the election. some people in the internetverse thought this was an unusual move. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Are you quoting some people in the internetverse?

Are these the same people who are saying things?

You also said,
It's sad there are people like you who are willing to break all the rules of fair play to gain power. And then act like it's no big deal.
You didn't answer my questions.
Who broke the rules? What's sad are people who will misrepresent information to appear to back up their bullshit.

"Attorney General William P. Barr has indicated that he is troubled by the possibility that the FBI conducted surveillance on the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. The president has regularly tweeted that he was a victim of spying. Trump’s allies in Congress have reiterated that claim.

There are two main threads to the accusations of spying: contacts by FBI-linked operatives with George Papadopoulos, a young Trump foreign policy aide, and federal court surveillance of Carter Page after he was ousted by the campaign. For instance, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) tweeted:

“Now we know they spied on at least two American citizens associated with the Trump campaign 1) Carter Page — using the false Dossier as the basis for a secret warrant 2) George Papadopolous — set up by an FBI agent posing as a Cambridge professor’s assistant.”

Barr told the Senate on Wednesday that he intended to look into the matter, though he described what is known so far as “a fairly anemic” attempt: “Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I would like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it’s being represented.”

As a service for readers who may be confused about the claims and counterclaims, here’s what we know, based on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, legal filings, Papadopoulos’s memoir, “Deep State Target,” Greg Miller’s “The Apprentice,” and news reports. Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, is examining the FBI’s handling of the probe, so we may learn more eventually.

It’s clear the Justice Department was investigating possible ties between Russia and Trump campaign officials. The question is whether the investigation ever crossed a line into spying on the campaign itself — and that so far has not been proved."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...es-your-guide/


I disagree the campaign was spied on. Surveillance on a person isn't surveillance on an organization (this is a chance for you to use a Venn Diagram. maybe you could get it right this time. just kidding you, you don't have to embarrass yourself again). It should be easy to supply a link to prove your misrepresentation of available facts.
"Trump's 2016 campaign was spied on. That's a proven fact."
As far as breaking all the rules of fair play to obtain (or retain)power, that is pure trump. And you and all the other trumpys think it's no big deal. A proven fact.

The following link disputes your federalist article. Both events and reasons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/26/michael-flynn-barack-obama-trumps-claims-treason/

Do you dispute flynn discussed sanctions with the Russians and then lied about it to pence? trump fired flynn. The FBI didn't interview flynn until Jan. 22. He lied to pence before the inauguration.

I said "spying on a political campaign is a big deal". Care to disagree with that statement?

Trump's 2016 campaign was spied on. That's a proven fact. The spying continued through his inauguration and into his first year in office. Also a proven fact.

I didn't say odumbo was CAUGHT directing the spying (emphasis on "caught"). That's the narrow claim that your biased Politifact dipshits deemed false."
The word "caught" is only mentioned in trump's tweet. There was no mention of "narrow claim that your biased Politifact dipshits deemed false.".
Just another misinformation attempt by the asshole himself.

From the politifact link you didn't seem to read.


Multiple independent investigations, including a bipartisan Senate report, determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.

A Justice Department review found the FBI had sufficient evidence to investigate Russian contacts with four Trump campaign associates.

No investigation found any Obama White House influence over the FBI’s work.

Multiple reports confirm that Obama did not initiate or attempt to influence the FBI’s work.
That FBI investigation itself has been the subject of investigations by the Justice Department and Congress.

Not one found that Obama initiated or meddled in the FBI’s work. Not one concluded that the FBI lacked good reason to launch the investigation.

"There is not a shred of evidence that it was directed by the White House," said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration.

Highlights from the investigations of the 2016 election

A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, approved by both Republicans and Democrats, said bluntly that the Russian government interfered with the goal of seeing Trump win. One key Russian tactic was the hack into the Democratic National Committee email server and the release through WikiLeaks of material to embarrass the Hillary Clinton campaign.

"Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,"
(something trump and his pissboys have done for the Russians this year)the report said.

The Senate report said that Manafort "sought to secretly share internal campaign information with (Konstantin) Kilimnik." It called Kilimnik "a Russian intelligence officer."

The report also concluded that Trump spoke with political operative Roger Stone about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks, something Trump denies ever took place. (Trump commuted Stone's sentence.)

"Trump and the campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016," the report said.

The FBI’s conduct
The Senate did not directly assess the origins of the FBI’s investigation. The Justice Department Inspector General did. The inspector general looked at whether the FBI followed department rules for opening investigations and whether politics had played a role.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced (the) decision to open Crossfire Hurricane," the Inspector General’s 2019 report said.

The report criticized the FBI and Justice Department for having a low threshold of evidence to trigger a counterintelligence investigation, but given the rules at the time, the facts were sufficient.

"The FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime," the report said.

It cites former FBI director James Comey as saying that he did not brief Obama about the investigation in detail, although Comey did say that the agency was looking at whether any Americans were helping the Russians, and he might have said there were people with "some association or connection to the Trump campaign."

According to the report, the White House did not follow up after that briefing.

The investigation was marred — an FBI lawyer recently pleaded guilty to falsifying the paperwork to justify electronic surveillance. But American University law professor Jennifer Daskal said any missteps were the FBI’s alone.

"By all accounts, President Obama did not — and would not, per at the time well-established protocol — dictate the nuances of the FBI investigation," Daskal said.

The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI’s investigation of national security adviser Flynn’s contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn’t in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI "should look at things and have the right people on it."

Spying?
There is no legal definition of spying. The FBI investigated four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign. One of them, Carter Page, was the subject of electronic surveillance, which rates as highly intrusive in the FBI rule book.

That didn’t happen until October 2016, after Page’s name was already in the news and the Trump campaign said publicly it had no connection with him. And the FBI had tracked Page before Trump announced his White House run.

Litt said the closest the FBI came to spying was in August 2016 when it briefed the Trump campaign on its investigation into Russian interference. Among the briefing team was an FBI agent who went, as the Inspector General’s report noted, because he knew national security adviser Flynn would be there. And Flynn was targeted.

For the rest of it, Litt said there is "no indication that this was anything other than an adequately predicated counterintelligence investigation."

There is one more review in the works. Attorney General William Barr tasked Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham to dig into the origins of the FBI’s investigation. That report is expected before the election.

Our ruling
Trump said Obama "spied on my campaign, and got caught!"

Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no political influence over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House.

We rate this claim False.

But it has been proven that odumbo knew about the spying based on that infamous WH meeting on January 5, 2017.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/08...ump-operation/ Originally Posted by lustylad

So the key take-away from all this was your attempt at misdirection and misrepresentation.

It's sad there are people like you who are willing to break all the rules of fair play (and legality) to gain power. And then act like it's no big deal.Who among you has a shred of patriotism?
The same kind of meat a catholic can eat on Friday....none(sic).

You unintentionally described the exact situation of our election. trump has proven there is no bottom to the depths he will sink (and all of his asshole brigade) to overturn this legal election.

I remember the douche-bag brigade claiming this during trump's impeachment. Except impeachment is the Constitutional method of removing a corrupt president.
Wild claims of unproven fraud are just trumpian.

he could I suppose, but it would be politically dicey. I think its harder to fire a special counsel than an attorney general. different standards at play.

look what happened to Meuller. Trump wanted to fire him. senators said no.

suppose Biden fires the special counsel and Trump couldn't before. would that action be hypocritcal??? yes. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Would it be like Merit Garland like hypocritical?



.

No one spied on Trumps campaign. That’s the big right wing lie. Ranks up there with massive voter fraud, right wing being censored, masks kill people too and other crazy shit they feed their base who is blissfully stupid.

In reality, no one really cares about Durham’s investigation. If someone lied, prosecute em. They in fact did that with one FBI lawyer and people shrugged and moved on because no one cares Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yeah, I'm sure when Republicans were saying that nobody cares about Russian interference, you were "yeah, you're right, let's just forget about it because nobody cares", right? Or how about "nobody cares about a dumb Mueller report". That was your stance, right? You may well be the biggest hypocrite I have ever come across.



"Nobody cares" is the real death of democracy.

You are correct in saying the AG sets the scope/limits of the Special Counsel's investigation. Since Hunter's laptop is beyond Durham's purview, I would like Bill Barr between now and Jan. 20 to appoint a separate Special Counsel specifically to look into that scandal.

! Originally Posted by lustylad

What's happening on Jan 20th?

Your boy bambam thinks there were less ballots sent out then returned in your great state. Is he lying again?




.

Yeah, I'm sure when Republicans were saying that nobody cares about Russian interference, you were "yeah, you're right, let's just forget about it because nobody cares", right? Or how about "nobody cares about a dumb Mueller report". That was your stance, right? You may well be the biggest hypocrite I have ever come across.



"Nobody cares" is the real death of democracy. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Well let's explain the difference.

The public was not aware of the Russian interference before the 2016 election. Mullar then rightfully so looked in to it.

The bogus Biden file was out for all to see and the public still voted for Biden.

Very similar to Kelly Anne Conway declaring that about Trump's taxes.

1blackman1...you will have to quote me here for HF to see. He is very thinned skinned and has me on ignore for throwing his own shit back at him a little too hard.

Would it be like Merit Garland like hypocritical?. Originally Posted by WTF

in garland's case, no.