Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

It looks like the first shoe has dropped with the Durham investigation with the Clinesmith plea deal. Clinesmith wasn't a low level FBI employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

He worked with Strzok to arrange sending an FBI agent into Trump-Flynn briefing, was on the Mueller team, he took part in the Papadopoulos interviews, and he participated in the FISA process.



From the NYT article:

Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Review of Russia Inquiry (Published 2020)

Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged.

www.nytimes.com

I wonder who else knew about the lies?

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, I presented my thoughts as an opinion. “I have felt”. You presented your opinion as if it were fact, which is why I felt the need to point out that it is opinion.

I disagree that there is nothing to lend itself that Mueller was constrained, but it’s pointless to debate this stuff.

We have no reason to believe that Brennan, through his spokesperson, is lying. It would be stupid to lie about his meeting with Durham, as the facts will come out at some point. And Durham could easily have a spokesperson say it wasn’t true right now, if he felt it wasn’t properly characterized.

And it’s pretty odd to think that the Senate intelligence report would spell out how they know someone is a Russian intelligence officer. I cannot imagine that information wouldn’t be classified and therefore either redacted or just not put in the report. I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that they don’t spell out how they know that.

You also made a big deal about Kilimnik working for McCain years ago and/or being a source of information for the FBI at one point. I don’t find that inconsistent with him being Russian intelligence nor do I think that automatically makes him a “double agent”. I think it’s probably not unusual for people who are Russian intelligence to try to work themselves into positions of trust if they are sent over here.

My thoughts on Brennan were speculation. I just thought it was curious that Brennan didn't make the statement himself. Why did he need to have his former spokesman put the statement out?

The Senate could have easily said we believe Kilimnik to be Russian intelligence based on classified documents or intercepted communications. If they make an explosive claim they should be prepared to back it up. The rest of their report has plenty of footnotes that show where the information or claims came from.

Considering previous reports said that Kilimnik was a good reliable source, it doesn't sound likely that he was Russian intelligence. If he was Russian intelligence wouldn’t it seem like he would have provided the State Department with unreliable or untrue intelligence?

 

[SaintForLife]

And, that's different than Trump, how? Can you show us when Mueller or Trump stated (a day or two after the discussion) that Trump wasn't a target of the investigation? Or did that come from others?

Are you saying that Brennan is probably a target?

The idea that Brennan's people would say "Durham said Brennan isn't a target"if it's not true is silly. If it was a lie, Durham's people could come out the next second and say, "No one said that." In fact, if Brennan is lying about that, why hasn't Durham clarified it?

The only thing thay Durham has said publicly for his entire investigation was when the IG report came out. Durham said he disagreed that the investigation had the proper predicate to start it. There has been zero leaks as well. Normally the prosecutors don't comment on the case in public so why would Durham do it?

 

[SaintForLife]

I wonder why Clinton was given a defensive briefing, but Trump wasn't?

 

[MT15]

Are you saying that Brennan is probably a target?

The only thing thay Durham has said publicly for his entire investigation was when the IG report came out. Durham said he disagreed that the investigation had the proper predicate to start it. There has been zero leaks as well. Normally the prosecutors don't comment on the case in public so why would Durham do it?

Durham’s comments already broke protocol when he made them, so if the record needs to be set straight what would stop him this time? He’s already done it once.

Oh, and Lindsay Graham has zero credibility. I don’t think the man has a shred of integrity left after these last 3.5 years. So whatever he puts out is just more partisan garbage to me. If that’s unfair, he should have thought of that before he tossed it all away in order to back Trump.

 

[FullMonte]

Are you saying that Brennan is probably a target?

Not at all...I'm saying that I find it hilarious that you defend Trump over and over......But here, you are implying that there is something nefarious going on because Brennan, after being interviewed for 8 hours, claimed that Durham said he wasn't a target...and you say directly that if Brennan faces charges, he has set the stage and can say it's all political.

Yet, I don't remember you calling out Trump for refusing to be interviewed, claiming it was all spin when it was said he wasn't a target of the investigation, and I haven't seen you call out Trump at all for claiming that every one of his associates who has faced charges was all political.

You can't have it both ways, you know?

 

[SaintForLife]

Durham’s comments already broke protocol when he made them, so if the record needs to be set straight what would stop him this time? He’s already done it once.

Oh, and Lindsay Graham has zero credibility. I don’t think the man has a shred of integrity left after these last 3.5 years. So whatever he puts out is just more partisan garbage to me. If that’s unfair, he should have thought of that before he tossed it all away in order to back Trump.

Which protocol are you referring to? Durham's investigation had already been announced so it's not like they needed to keep everything secret. Mueller did the same thing. Did he break protocol?

I'm no fan of Graham, but he released declassified documents that support his claim. So because you don't like Graham because he supported Trump everything he says can be discounted even if it's supported by evidence?

It is ironic that you criticize Graham for being partisan and not believable, but you constantly cited Schiff who has been shown to be a habitual liar on Russiagate. Do you remeber his memo that the media and democrats hyped as rebuttal to the Nunes memo? The media, democrats, & you said the Nunes memo was not accurate. The IG report showed Nunes memo was correct and the Schiff memo was complete BS.

Do you think it's okay that Clinton received a defensive briefing and Trump didn't?

 

[SaintForLife]

Not at all...I'm saying that I find it hilarious that you defend Trump over and over......But here, you are implying that there is something nefarious going on because Brennan, after being interviewed for 8 hours, claimed that Durham said he wasn't a target...and you say directly that if Brennan faces charges, he has set the stage and can say it's all political.

Yet, I don't remember you calling out Trump for refusing to be interviewed, claiming it was all spin when it was said he wasn't a target of the investigation, and I haven't seen you call out Trump at all for claiming that every one of his associates who has faced charges was all political.

You can't have it both ways, you know?

Was it Brenan or Trump that had their campaign spied on? Was it Brennan or Trump that already had a record of spying on Congress? Brennan's spokesman already made the claim about hoping the investigation would be apoltical. I also said that I was speculating. Brennan has been also shown to be a liar between what he was saying on MSNBC and what was actually true.

You guys have implied that Trump was a Russian agent for 3 years so I'm not sure you have much room to complain about someone speculating about Brennan.

 

[MT15]

I don’t believe it is true that I have constantly cited Schiff or anyone else, I try to get a variety of sources.

I will tell you one thing, though, just because Lindsay Graham released a few selected documents doesn’t prove what he says is true. He has become so tainted by his willingness to lie for Trump that I don’t take anything from him at face value.

Isn’t that what you have been stating is the case for Brennan and the Senate committee report and anything else that you don’t like?

If you are going to selectively choose what you believe and what you don’t, then don’t criticize me for doing the same thing as you are doing. Makes sense, right? Everyone has to make up their own mind about things. If you choose to believe what you choose, and you do continue to state things as fact that are not known to be facts, then don’t criticize people who don’t agree with you. Fair enough?

 

[MT15]

What Durham did is not the same as what Mueller did. It was widely reported at the time that Durham‘s statement was a break with protocol. You can easily look it up.

 

[FullMonte]

Brennan has been also shown to be a liar between what he was saying on MSNBC and what was actually true.

Well..you have me there, it's not like Trump has been shown to be a liar between what he was saying everywhere and what was actually true.

You guys have implied that Trump was a Russian agent for 3 years so I'm not sure you have much room to complain about someone speculating about Brennan.

Quick request: Please point out where I ever implied Trump was a Russian agent.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don’t believe it is true that I have constantly cited Schiff or anyone else, I try to get a variety of sources.

I will tell you one thing, though, just because Lindsay Graham released a few selected documents doesn’t prove what he says is true. He has become so tainted by his willingness to lie for Trump that I don’t take anything from him at face value.

Isn’t that what you have been stating is the case for Brennan and the Senate committee report and anything else that you don’t like?

If you are going to selectively choose what you believe and what you don’t, then don’t criticize me for doing the same thing as you are doing. Makes sense, right? Everyone has to make up their own mind about things. If you choose to believe what you choose, and you do continue to state things as fact that are not known to be facts, then don’t criticize people who don’t agree with you. Fair enough?

Graham released classified documents which is evidence of his claim. The Senate report made an "assessment" that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence and provided no evidence to back it up. Totally different.

So no comment from you on Clinton getting a defensive briefing and Trump not getting one?

I didn't say its a fact that Brennan did what I was speculating about. Do you really want me to go through your posts to find when you state something without a qualifier about it being an opinion? We all do that. Don't try to create a new standard.

 

[SaintForLife]

Well..you have me there, it's not like Trump has been shown to be a liar between what he was saying everywhere and what was actually true.



Quick request: Please point out where I ever implied Trump was a Russian agent.

Everyone knows Trump is a habitual liar. Does that need to be stated every time we talk about someone else lying and how is Trump's lying relevant to the Durham investigation?

I said you guys. I didn't say you. Do you really want to act like many here and the PDB didn't either outright say Trump was a Russian agent or implied it tons of times?

 

[SaintForLife]

What Durham did is not the same as what Mueller did. It was widely reported at the time that Durham‘s statement was a break with protocol. You can easily look it up.

I'm not even sure what protocol you are talking about. Since you made the claim can you be more specific or post a link?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This is really just an exhausting topic, so I haven't gotten involved on it. It's a story that has almost everything I hate in it. Leaks, and speculation over topics that most of us don't have the context to interpret correctly. It's the the flip side of the Russian/Mueller investigation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Lots of people can be wrong in any given situation. Trump's campaign could have behaved inappropriately with foreign agents, and the FBI could also have overstepped it's bounds in investigating it.

I have a lower bar for launching investigations with public figures, so I'm more than ok with investigations into high level officials like Trump. But I also am more than OK with investigations into how the FBI conducted its investigations (and I hope that conservative zeal for holding law enforcement to a very high standard continues in all aspects of law enforcement).

For the Durham investigation, I'd like to see it continue and then released when he has a complete report, but not until it is complete. My cynical side says that we're going to get a preliminary draft report in October that will accuse the FBI of something along the lines of over zealousness and so on, but other than Clinesmith no other indictments will be made. And then we just get to argue some more about the overall significance of one statement over the other.

 

[MT15]

Yup, I’m about exhausted talking about it. No real communication going on anyway.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is really just an exhausting topic, so I haven't gotten involved on it. It's a story that has almost everything I hate in it. Leaks, and speculation over topics that most of us don't have the context to interpret correctly. It's the the flip side of the Russian/Mueller investigation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Lots of people can be wrong in any given situation. Trump's campaign could have behaved inappropriately with foreign agents, and the FBI could also have overstepped it's bounds in investigating it.

I have a lower bar for launching investigations with public figures, so I'm more than ok with investigations into high level officials like Trump. But I also am more than OK with investigations into how the FBI conducted its investigations (and I hope that conservative zeal for holding law enforcement to a very high standard continues in all aspects of law enforcement).

For the Durham investigation, I'd like to see it continue and then released when he has a complete report, but not until it is complete. My cynical side says that we're going to get a preliminary draft report in October that will accuse the FBI of something along the lines of over zealousness and so on, but other than Clinesmith no other indictments will be made. And then we just get to argue some more about the overall significance of one statement over the other.

I agree with your post except about the leaks. There have been zero leaks from the Durham investigation which is not surprising considering Durham's history. With the Mueller probe and the Crossfire Hurricane there were many leaks often to try to shape public perception.

The problem is not that an investigation was launched, but that it was continued an extended for as long as possible despite the FBI and Mueller knowing quickly that there wasn't collusion or conspiracy. The media coordinated with the FBI, Mueller’s team and unnamed intelligence sources to keep the Russiagate narrative in the news for as much as possible and for as long as possible to damage Trump.

Trump is an idiot and not a likeable figure so it was easy for his critics to believe anything and everything during Russiagate. Just about every claim or bombshell crumpled over time and when we finally got the evidence that contradicted those claims.

If the shoe was on the other foot you can be damn sure that the media and the Democrats would be outraged over a presidential administration using the FBI and surveillance powers to illegally spy on American citizens and a presidential campaign. But because Trump is easy to hate the left and the media have convinced themselves that the ends justified the means.

 

[RobF]

The problem is not that an investigation was launched, but that it was continued an extended for as long as possible despite the FBI and Mueller knowing quickly that there wasn't collusion or conspiracy.

Mueller came out and explicitly said that, "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." And that was after the investigation concluded. So the notion that they ruled out anything quickly is clearly false; they never ruled those out at all.

Additionally there were, what, nearly 200 criminal charges from the investigation?

So that particular point is either playing semantics beyond reason (by arguing 'collusion or conspiracy' aren't included in 'crimes') , or is outright false.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I agree with your post except about the leaks. There have been zero leaks from the Durham investigation which is not surprising considering Durham's history. With the Mueller probe and the Crossfire Hurricane there were many leaks often to try to shape public perception.

The problem is not that an investigation was launched, but that it was continued an extended for as long as possible despite the FBI and Mueller knowing quickly that there wasn't collusion or conspiracy. The media coordinated with the FBI, Mueller’s team and unnamed intelligence sources to keep the Russiagate narrative in the news for as much as possible and for as long as possible to damage Trump.

Trump is an idiot and not a likeable figure so it was easy for his critics to believe anything and everything during Russiagate. Just about every claim or bombshell crumpled over time and when we finally got the evidence that contradicted those claims.

If the shoe was on the other foot you can be damn sure that the media and the Democrats would be outraged over a presidential administration using the FBI and surveillance powers to illegally spy on American citizens and a presidential campaign. But because Trump is easy to hate the left and the media have convinced themselves that the ends justified the means.

We've discussed this before, so I'm not sure we'll make much ground here, but I don't think it was established that Mueller nor the FBI knew quickly that there wasn't collusion or conspiracy. We have testimony that the Trump administration was not cooperating with the investigation (which is their right) and at times actively trying to interfere with it (which is debatable if I'm being generous).

I think it goes a little bit beyond Trump just being unlikeable and a hostile media. I know you are skeptical of whether or not Kilimnick was a Russian intelligence asset (and believe it or not, Kilimnik working for the State Department in the past and McCain in the past does not mean he wasn't a Russian intelligence asset - we work with foreign intelligence all the time). But frankly, your opinion doesn't really matter - for there to be gross malfeasance by the FBI, etc, you have to prove that they did not believe he was a Russian intelligence agent. And that's going to be very difficult, since a number of reports have come out, some from Republicans and some from other US intel agencies that it was believed that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence asset.

My point isn't to go over the entire Russia investigation again, but to show that you're going to have a hard time showing that the FBI did not believe that there was nothing worth investigating. On top of the fact that you really haven't established a great motive for the FBI to try to sabotage a president. Trump being unlikeable seems like a pretty weak motive. And since a good number of the principles of the FBI were aligned with Trump supposed policies, and Trump had talked about beefing up intel and law enforcement - they weren't in danger of budget cuts. The simplest explanation is that they actually thought there was something worth investigating.

I can understand your frustration with the leaks during the Mueller investigation, but there were also leaks during the Clinton investigation, and you have been quoting a number of selective "releases" in this very thread. It's really frustrating for someone like me who would rather wait to see everything in a completed and sourced report.

I suspect you're setting yourself up for disappointment with the Durham investigation, and it will lead to something that I will be disappointed with - a lack of clear procedures for law enforcement.