Of course Durham disagrees with IG Horowitz, that's because it'd be impossible to agree.

When "low threshold" becomes the legal wording for "lying between your teeth." The report was damning, I've yet to complete it but I've read the summary findings including the justifications. It was a nauseating read. And contrary to James Comey, the only ones who slandered the FBI are those who began "crossfire hurricane."

Let's first start with the first, primary and frankly the only defense of the corruption that was laid on display by IG Horowitz: That so far as they perceived a national security threat, that would make it okay for them to begin the investigation.

Here, I want to introduce the definition of two words: Perception and assumption.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perception


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption

Particularly, the 3rd definition applies here:

"
3a : an assuming that something is true a mistaken assumption
b : a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom (see axiom sense 2), postulate, or notion) taken for granted"

Perception, by contrast is something that you see, smell or hear. It is the perception, or the cognition of a certain state of reality. The report asserts that the FBI ASSUMPTION is a perception of fact, or to be brutally blunt: The FBI assumed that it's presumptions were factual or perceptive, when in fact it was merely the presumption of the FBI.

In the report, we finally got wind of the information former Rep Trey Gowdy referred to as a statement by Papadoupolis, the statement outright stating that it would be treasonous and that no one in the campaign endorsed an activity, or acted upon an activity.

We furthermore learn that the "october surprise" referenced to public statements made by Julian Assange. In of itself, this is something to criticize the FBI for as it was clearly open sourced information, yet the FBI did not act as though it was open sourced. Instead, the FBI inferred(in fact, a lot of the FBI's claims are an inferring kind, not even of a presumptuous kind. That's just me being kind.) that it was some sort of secret information that Papadoupolis knew. Laughably, they go onto state that "it was a rehearsed statement." Note that the FBI has no proof of any of this as they act, in real time.

Even ignoring any criminal liability, this is shoddy detective work. You're supposed to examine the evidence as you acquire it, not dismissing it out of hand and you basically collide the facts so as to examine the veracity or lackthereof of a statement or piece of evidence.

If it were limited to just this, perhaps I could concur not criminal, but the worst form of investigation publicly disclosed in a while. Carter Page has a strong case in that not only did Comey receive a letter from Carter Page, but that Page wanted this meeting that wasn't granted. It's an investigative imperative that you get the suspects on record, voluntarily preferable so that you can get them under oath. Comey neglected this investigative obligation which would have protected his FBI.

When James Baker confirmed that the FBI refused to defensively brief the Trump Campaign, out of its own presumptive concerns that such a brief would "flush out" the so-called Russian operatives(of which there are none, even the Special Counsel refused to charge Paul Manafort as such an agent.), the FBI lost the legal justification in my view(as well as Durham/Barr.)

The reason being, is that a suspect(which the Trump Campaign was), should be informed of being suspected. Had the Campaign been informed, it would have yes probably(almost definitively) cut ties with for example a Papadoupolis a lot sooner(even though there was no lawful reason to have done so.) In other words, to protect its nonexistent case, the FBI didn't allow the campaign to cooperate in an investigation.

Imagine being suspected of robbing a store, being tailed as though you robbed the store but never being told that you were a suspect. There's Miranda Rights folks:

http://www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html

And yes, I hold that even if no one was under police custody those rights should still be respected. Barr/Durham are of the same legal opinion.

However, back to the main topic of defense: Perception VS Assumption. To perceive something in a state of reality, it has to be observable. Given the conflicting statements including exculpatory statements, it's clear that it wasn't observable. To observe something that is not there, is to assume that it's there.

While there is justification based on a perception of a crime that was committed, or about to be committed there is no justification based on the assumption that a crime is about to be committed.

Then there's the withholding and omitting of evidence, which is what we would call PERJURY. That's a felonious stature. Interestingly, the FBI also dug its own grave when quoting Carter Page that 'false evidence' is one of the keys for Obstruction of Justice. I agree with Carter Page. Such that the false evidence here, equally is Obstruction of Justice.

Once you come to terms that the FBI presumed, it didn't perceive, the justification is eliminated and the crimes of perjury, false statements and obstruction were in fact committed. 17, SEVENTEEN times.

I await the substantial prosecutions by Durham/Barr.

 

Let's start with trump, who has engaged in lying, bribery, obstruction and probably treason, as he has thrown the US under the bus to pursue his personal business and political interests.
But trump's flunkies are too corrupt and disloyal to America to do the right thing and his worshippers don't care that he's a criminal degenerate as long as he panders to their hate and greed.

 

Lying maybe, Bribery NO, Obstruction NO, Treason, NO. What personal businesses has he pursued as President, and don't tell us about meetings at his resorts, the same ones that saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands correct?

 

Lying maybe? LMAO. Bribery? More than a dozen witnesses, some with direct knowledge have established that beyond reasonable doubt. Obstruction? Trump has ordered his "team" in the Cabinet, Advisors, etc. "DO NOT TESTIFY IF SUBPOENAED BY CONGRESS!" It would be impossible to find a clearer case of obstruction of justice. Treason? Close. Very close.

Where are these magical resorts that have saved taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars? South Dakota? Alaska? Tell us all please.

 

I don't want this thread necessarily to be about Trump/Ukraine, it's not about that. And it's not even so much about Trump as it is about US Person Carter Page, and US as a citizenry as a whole. Given the FBI theory(outlined above) regarding our first and fourth amendments, the apostle of the State is deeper and far more powerful than I thought.

We ARE Ukraine 2.0, literally.

 

I want to address something else, another point of contention that I have with Horowitz's report, and it goes to the heart of FBI justification for Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI's story is that they heard about the rumored statements made by Papadoupolis through Alexander Downer(who had since contested the FBI's interpretation of Hillary's emails.)

That contesting aside(and it is substantial enough on its own), there are other problems. The biggest of which being: Is a statement attributed to a single source credible enough to open up an investigation? The FBI says yes, the law says otherwise.

https://www.justsecurity.org/40451/standards-opening-fbi-investigation-statistic-meaningless/

"credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe that an American” is committing a federal crime in order to initiate an investigation."

We have to thus judge credibility, we know that the statement by itself isn't credible hence they wanted it repeated for themselves on record.(Horowitz report), if they couldn't get Papa to repeat his statement, it'd be utterly inadmissible in court.

We also know there existed no physical evidence at that, or any time that lent any credibility to the accusation of conspiring with the Russians to influence the 2016 elections. Given the lack of physical evidence, and the absence of even circumstantial evidence(beyond Trump's email statements and this rumored statement by Papadopolus), the FBI had no legal justification for opening up this investigation.

 

Nice analysis in the OP, I think you make a good case for shoddy investigative competence at the very least. Haven't read the report fully myself, and may add more later.

But as far as the above goes, you realize that -every- thread is either 1. A LW talking point/lie narrative thread, OR 2. ORANGEMANBAD. That's the best you are gonna get from them.

 

With respect to your title of this thread, you never mentioned Durham in the OP. You still haven't mentioned him.

 

I mentioned in the title OP that Durham disagreed with Horowitz, and I mentioned why he would be inclined to disagree. Even with what is known, perjury was committed. 17 times. 17 times they either lied, edited or hid information that would have aided or concluded the investigation.

If you and I lie, we go to jail. James Comey lies and he gets to perch his ass on MSNBC. It's about two tiers of Justice, not about Trump. Comey should be indicted right now.

 

Yeah, we get it. Onto the next conspiracy theory it’s the way of the nutty.

 

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's an ongoing criminal investigation. In fact, that there's no indictments should scare the bejesus out of Comey and CO. Because my analysis came from the now released IG report. The prosecution has MORE than enough evidence to prove Perjury, several counts over.

Which means there's more than Perjury/Falsification, and that Barr/Durham are investigating these separate violations. I await their report eagerly. Not because the IG failed, but because the IG Report is but a portion of a Crossfire Hurricane that's going to snare every single principle actor.

Karma, baby, karma.

 

Nobody should be indicted before trump. The buck for this criminally corrupt kakistocracy stops with him.
Stop trying to polish the turd that is trump by desperately pointing the finger at everyone else. You should be ashamed to support such a disgusting degenerate and have more respect for your country.
We are better than trump.

 

I'm not polishing any turds. The fact is, these officials had even less regard for our rights than Trump does. If they're allowed to do as they please, our country's a true turd.

 

If there was any credence to their accusations, Democrats wouldn't have charged their attorneys to ask eachother questions like, "Does the absence of evidence of a crime in the transcript prove that Trump, the reprobate that he is, committed a crime?" You also wouldn't have a member of the Bar answer, "Why, in my 10 years experience in the criminal justice system reprobates like Trump would never admit to committing a crime by committing a crime --- like asking for a quid pro quo."

The lack of evidence is all the evidence they have ,,, besides Sondland who testified that Trump wanted nothing from Ukraine in a direct conversation and later clarified his statement, after someone got to him, by relating a he said she said montage of hearsay among 4 people none of whom were on the call.

This circus has been a show for the mentally challenged who Democrats must consider their base.

 

I’m more inclined to think that you are closer to conspiracy theory rather than facing reality. As they say, denial is the mother of conspiracy theories.

I’m sure every presidential candidate gets a thorough background check. It would have been discovered eventually, the connection between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

I find it a bit odd, although I suppose a bit of an admission, that Trump supporters keep going back those who tipped off the public. It is almost as if the conservative narrative is, well he did it but if you had never found out, everything would be all fine and dandy.

Whoever first started the Russia investigation, whoever the whistle blower was, really does not matter. Trump has been engaging in unethical behavior and needs to be held accountable.

 

,,,,, The mother of conspiracy theories is the Russian Collusion coverup for Hillary funding a foreign national's Dossier on Trump.
,,,, Next in line is the Ukraine Bribery conspiracy theory to cover up for Biden holding back $1B in aid from Ukraine to protect Hunter Biden's money pit.

To put in perspective the issue of whistleblower identities, peruse the legacy of Trump's predecessor, here

Obama’s Legacy: A Historic War On Whistleblowers
Rashed Mian
January 14, 2017
https://www.longislandpress.com/2017/01/14/obamas-legacy-historic-war-on-whistleblowers/

As he did in setting the record for the SCOTUS slapping down his unconstitutional dictates, Obama broke the record for his attacks on whistleblowers.

I'm sure you were vocal about Obama's fascist attacks.

 

When...did I say any of this? This isn't about 'whoever first started the Russia investigation', this is about the lawfulness, and the willingness to obey the law, of our law enforcement community. Stay on topic, please. A counterintelligence investigation on the Russian election hacking is fine(which, to my great dismay, though they brag that they could easily prove it's Russia, they've yet to do so. Why should I take their words at face value, given everything they've deceived us on?)

They assured you it wasn't happening, the IG report told you: Yes, yes it is happening. The only thing is that IG Horowitz accepted at face value, the justification by principle actors whereas Barr/Durham don't accept that justification. Neither do I, as analyzed above. Other than Horowitz accepting their justification, everything was as told to you by those of us following the ongoing criminal investigation.

They turned it into a criminal probe on a conspiracy between "members of the Trump Campaign and Russia", and there was utterly insufficient evidence to turn it into a criminal probe. That is to say, just because someone said "I saw Tom murder Kelly", doesn't mean you charge Tom with murder. You might ask Tom about where he was on the night of Kelly's murder, you might even get DNA sampling, but you don't charge him with the murder.

The FBI by contrast, took insufficient evidence(The so-called conversation between Papadoupolis and Downer, which both men contest) and decided to run wild with it. In ways that the IG report revealed, were far beyond anything we contemplated. Get Trump out of your head and consider these now-facts: 17 times. SEVENTEEN times of altering, or hiding or omitting evidence including direct witness testimony against the principle crime.

And it wasn't just US Person Carter Page who was snared in without a crime, now we know a fourth person was snared in, again without a crime. We also know that US Person Carter Page was essentially a CIA mole into the campaign(Not so much a problem for him, as it is for John Brennan. Did he or anyone at the CIA approve of his entering the campaign? That's something for congressional hearings.)

These violations of law and due process are substantial, they violated the human rights of persons within the campaign and above all, are an attack against ALL of us in the United States, given the FBI's shoddy legal theory that they can investigate whomever, whenever without substantial evidence.

This is not about Trump, this is about these principle actors, all of them giving a middle finger to the constitution as well as to their own duties within the various organizations where charges of incompetence were on display.

 

We've been living in a "by all mean necessary" world for quite a while. It isn't about policies or ideal now, it's about winning. And if corrupting the FBI and other agencies is the way to do it, the peoples rights be damn!

And it isn't unique to the USA. Look closely at every western nation and you'll see it in play. In Canada the RCMP planted bombs and torched barns in the 70's. In the UK MI5 and 6 aren't clean either. France, Germany? Same **** different smell.

We all need to reform the whole political apparatus.

 

Worse than that. A temp hire for the summer is suspected of a crime, and the police use this to spy on your business, track your phone calls, emails, and put you on surveillance. Then, send covert agents to question your employees, and even attempt to get you to hire them.

 

I don't think there has been a American president "Aside from that Bullshlt General Washington claimed" that hasn't lied.. Lying is just part of the political process, meant to capture the stupid and their vote, thats why it's a mixture of truths and lies ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

LMAO So what did he get for his BRIBERY? I mean, you do get something for it, right? The left sure have a strange idea about bribery and how it works ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

One question that I don't have the answer to. Did Horowitz, as the IG during this investigation, place all the people he spoke to under oath? Or did he just have to take them at their word?

 

Treason? Oh come on. The House speaker, and Schiff have proven time again how biased they are against the President. They have no evidence other that their own biased suspicions, assumptions and claims to be able to read Trump's mind.

They need evidence, certainly more than just their feelings and assumptions.

Add on top of this, the unfair, unequal process that Schiff and the dems are using. The majority gets three witnesses to the Republicans one witness. And Schiff can veto any witness the repubs want to call. Schiff can also prevent any witness from answering any Republican's question.

Even now, all they have are their assumptions.

 

I suspect he took them at their word, but given what they are criminally liable to at this point, whether under oath or not I don't exactly trust their word(and their word goes against the now available evidence.). Literally, they lied about everything for 2 1/2 years and their only defense is to continue to lie.

 

Speaking of that, I think Trump is probably the most transparent president we have ever had. He says what's on his mind, there is no guile with Trump. Even if it's politically incorrect to say, he will still express what is on his mind and what his intentions are.