Durham's report found DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe

[Jon Miller]

Very easily?

This is the same issue as biased police officers. Yes you need to correct it. But the fact that there are biased police officers does not mean that we can't claim to have a democracy or that there is a partisan weaponization of the police.

Who said 'get over it'? Both the left and the right have been saying that the FBI needs reform. It is just that the right has started saying that the reform is needed because the FBI (as a whole) has been used against them by the left. That claim, with evidence to the contrary (including this Durham Report, and the others), is a serious problem for our Democracy. And much bigger than a couple of biased FBI agents, even the ones that may have cost Hillary the election (these ones hassled Page, which I am not saying was correct, but if you condemned all of law enforcement whenever someone was hassled due to bias we would never stop condemning law enforcement).

I view the leaks from the NY FBI office about Hillary's emails, and the press conference about them, as more damaging to our country then Page being hassled, and an investigation maybe continuing past the point it should have (or even starting when it shouldn't have). Same as with Hunter Biden btw.

JM
(edit: to connect to Biden and acknowledge that maybe there wasn't enough evidence to start Operation Hurricane, at least with the scope it had.)

[Jon Miller]

Basically, one of the issues is that if you are going through and removing all agents with any bias towards Democrats out of the FBI, then you are going to encourage bias towards Republicans (and the FBI has always? had more agents with bias towards Republicans, every single leader has been Republican/etc). If you go through and remove any agents that have bias either way, you are left with no agents.

JM

[Jon Miller]

"Rather than endorse the theory of a global anti-Trump conspiracy, Durham settles into a long bill of grievances against the FBI. The agency’s methods, he argues, were too aggressive; its agents were too ready to believe the worst about Trump. The FBI had only enough information to justify a preliminary investigation, not a full one—a distinction the report carefully parses for some pages. This, in the end, is the gravamen of the Durham report: The FBI overreacted to the available information about Trump’s Russia contacts and should have moved more cautiously before advancing to the next phase of an investigation.

Specialists in the law and practice of counter-intelligence can argue whether Durham has correctly interpreted the appropriate modalities of FBI procedure. Very possibly, Durham is correct. Yet even if he is, isn’t this all kind of underwhelming? Durham’s sponsors hoped to reveal a globe-spanning conspiracy to vilify an innocent Donald Trump. What he delivered for them instead was a list of arguable procedural infractions by the FBI.:"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/05/durham-report-fbi-trump-russia/674088/

​
JM

[PLATO]

Very easily?

This is the same issue as biased police officers. Yes you need to correct it. But the fact that there are biased police officers does not mean that we can't claim to have a democracy or that there is a partisan weaponization of the police.

No, it is not the same issue. These actions influenced a Presidential election. It is the same concept, but you have to acknowledge the scale. Both are wrong, but one has much, much larger consequence.

Who said 'get over it'?

Jrabbit...post right above mine.

Both the left and the right have been saying that the FBI needs reform. It is just that the right has started saying that the reform is needed because the FBI (as a whole) has been used against them by the left. That claim, with evidence to the contrary (including this Durham Report, and the others), is a serious problem for our Democracy. And much bigger than a couple of biased FBI agents, even the ones that may have cost Hillary the election (these ones hassled Page, which I am not saying was correct, but if you condemned all of law enforcement whenever someone was hassled due to bias we would never stop condemning law enforcement).

Where did I say I say I condemned all law enforcement? I am calling for more oversight. Clearly here political bias entered the system. If there had been some type of independent oversight then it may have been nipped in the bud. We must all acknowledge that there will be bias in people. That is human nature. We cannot, however, allow that to influence our democratic process. Why would anyone be against oversight when it is plain to see the potential consequences it could have...particularly when the impact is on a national scale?

I view the leaks from the NY FBI office about Hillary's emails, and the press conference about them, as more damaging to our country then Page being hassled, and an investigation maybe continuing past the point it should have (or even starting when it shouldn't have). Same as with Hunter Biden btw.

While I readily acknowledge that the Hillary leaks were bad, they exist as part of the same problem. In that case, however, the FBI did not lie to a FISA court and ignore esculpatory evidence. Clearly there is a difference in revealing the truth and fabricating lies.

JM
(edit: to connect to Biden and acknowledge that maybe there wasn't enough evidence to start Operation Hurricane, at least with the scope it had.)

[PLATO]

Basically, one of the issues is that if you are going through and removing all agents with any bias towards Democrats out of the FBI, then you are going to encourage bias towards Republicans (and the FBI has always? had more agents with bias towards Republicans, every single leader has been Republican/etc). If you go through and remove any agents that have bias either way, you are left with no agents.

JM

Once again...I am not calling on removing agents. I am calling for OVERSIGHT of the process of investigation. Why are you twisting my words here? That is an unusual tactic for you Jon.

[PLATO]

"Rather than endorse the theory of a global anti-Trump conspiracy, Durham settles into a long bill of grievances against the FBI. The agency’s methods, he argues, were too aggressive; its agents were too ready to believe the worst about Trump. The FBI had only enough information to justify a preliminary investigation, not a full one—a distinction the report carefully parses for some pages. This, in the end, is the gravamen of the Durham report: The FBI overreacted to the available information about Trump’s Russia contacts and should have moved more cautiously before advancing to the next phase of an investigation.

Specialists in the law and practice of counter-intelligence can argue whether Durham has correctly interpreted the appropriate modalities of FBI procedure. Very possibly, Durham is correct. Yet even if he is, isn’t this all kind of underwhelming? Durham’s sponsors hoped to reveal a globe-spanning conspiracy to vilify an innocent Donald Trump. What he delivered for them instead was a list of arguable procedural infractions by the FBI.:"

JM

Obviously you are looking at this with the same bias the author of this prose is. This is NOT about Donald Trump. This is about the FBI lying to a FISA court and withholding esculpatory evidence in an investigation of a political candidate.

This is unacceptable. It doesn't matter that it was Trump. It seems to me that people are overlooking what is important here in any type of effort to discredit Trump. Once again though...This is about a lack of oversight at the FBI and not about Donald Trump.

If you don't see a serious potential issue here then I just don't know what to say. Maybe TDS????

[Jon Miller]

Can you explain to my why Page being hassled and Operation Hurricane going on for too long makes you incensed and question whether we are in a democracy and accuse the FBI of acting in a partisan matter (you words in this thread) while NYC FBI agents intentionally leaking information about a Hillary investigation in such a way as to politically damage her political prospects, and the head of the FBI giving a news briefing while voting was going on that was damaging to her election, was not something worth talking about?

If it is about the FBI, including the minor lie to the FISA court that resulted in Page being hassled (not even resulting in a wrongful conviction or anything of the sort), then why aren't you addressing this in an unbiased matter?

I don't see you posting about the earlier situation being unacceptable, or any of the other law enforcement mistakes being acceptable.

I am not saying this isn't an issue, and the unbiased interpretation would place it as similar to other problems observed in the FBI, but I don't see this as more serious than the other problems observed. It seems significantly less serious.

And you still keep presenting a position that isn't supported by Durham's report even.

JM

[Jon Miller]

While I readily acknowledge that the Hillary leaks were bad, they exist as part of the same problem. In that case, however, the FBI did not lie to a FISA court and ignore esculpatory evidence. Clearly there is a difference in revealing the truth and fabricating lies.

Agents leaked evidence to make it appear as if there was a serious crime, while not leaking the esculpatory evidence that they had available. That is much worse, because it has much worse impact (changing votes, hassling Hillary, wasting money) than something that was internal and resulted in nothing more than wasting a bit of money and hassling Page.

JM

[Berzerker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/u...nce-jan-6.html

JM

9 est pm CSPAN

Now that I stopped watching Fox I checked out Newsmax and its basically just former Fox talking heads who drove me to watch MSNBC for over a decade

[Berzerker]

After reading the executive summary I fail to see how anyone could not see this type of action as very dangerous to our country. The disparate treatment of information about intelligence on both candidates was plainly documented. It matters not that an agent "Thought" they were doing something the right way. Procedures for these type of investigations should be well documented and followed. In this case an obvious political bias was present weather conscious or unconscious. This cannot be tolerated in a free society. It does not matter that the bias was against Trump. It would be equally as large a problem if the reverse was true. This issue goes beyond party or candidate. There must be a standard and the standard must be upheld.

If we let this go and "just get over it" then we are opening the door to similar issues in the future. This is a big deal and clearly oversight is needed to make sure standards of equality and fairness are upheld. If not, how can we claim we have a democracy?

C'mon Man... Here's the deal, nobody cares if Obama spied on Trump and framed political opponents as traitors or election rigging by the CIA and FBI. Trump justifies the means.

[PLATO]

Can you explain to my why Page being hassled and Operation Hurricane going on for too long makes you incensed and question whether we are in a democracy and accuse the FBI of acting in a partisan matter (you words in this thread) while NYC FBI agents intentionally leaking information about a Hillary investigation in such a way as to politically damage her political prospects, and the head of the FBI giving a news briefing while voting was going on that was damaging to her election, was not something worth talking about?

Jon...The FBI LIED to a Federal Court to be able to eavesdrop on a Candidate for President. That is what is worse.

I am in agreement with you that the Hillary revelations were a huge breech of what should have happened. BOTH of these points support increased oversight. However...LYING to a Federal Judge by an FBI agent is the slippery slope...not leaks. The Hillary emails may have had a larger impact but don't represent the same level of danger if left unchecked.

This is not really a contest of "Which is worse". This is fuel on an already existing fire that shows serious and fundamental problems at the FBI. There must be oversight.

I am baffeled by why you think both that this is a dlck swinging contest and that one part of this is no big deal.

See through the TDS and see that the entire country...Democrat, Republican, and Independent ALL have a problem.

If it is about the FBI, including the minor lie to the FISA court that resulted in Page being hassled (not even resulting in a wrongful conviction or anything of the sort), then why aren't you addressing this in an unbiased matter?

Please listen to what you are saying! "Minor Lie" from the FBI to "FISA Court" is okay? NO! This sets a very dangerous precedent. This cannot go unchallenged. NO lie by the FBI to ANY court is Acceptable in the least!

I don't see you posting about the earlier situation being unacceptable, or any of the other law enforcement mistakes being acceptable.

If you are talking about the Hillary email scandal, then see it here: The leaks that the FBI did to discredit a political candidate are unacceptable. This only supports the case for increased oversight. Most particularly on cases with a National impact like a Presidential race.

I am not saying this isn't an issue, and the unbiased interpretation would place it as similar to other problems observed in the FBI, but I don't see this as more serious than the other problems observed. It seems significantly less serious.

The FBI has been guilty of unacceptable behavior in several instances. The red line for me is lying to the FISA court and withholding esculpatory evidence from them. This places the FBI in a position of being both investigator and judge. This cannot be allowed to happen.

And you still keep presenting a position that isn't supported by Durham's report even.

Then you haven't read the report my friend. Durham plainly lays out that FISA was lied to by the FBI and that the FBI withheld esculpatory evidence. It is very plain in the report and Durham doesn't mince words.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Jon...The FBI LIED to a Federal Court to be able to eavesdrop on a Candidate for President. That is what is worse.

An agent of the FBI lied to the Federal Court to eavesdrop on Page. Not on Trump.

That isn't as bad as an agent of the FBI lying to the media in order to harm the campaign of a candidate for president.

I don't understand whether you are being purposefully dishonest or if you don't understand what Durham and Horowitz actually said and have evidence for (and in this case, proved in court) rather than what right wing media claims as they attack the FBI.

JM

[Berzerker]

Agents leaked evidence to make it appear as if there was a serious crime, while not leaking the esculpatory evidence that they had available. That is much worse, because it has much worse impact (changing votes, hassling Hillary, wasting money) than something that was internal and resulted in nothing more than wasting a bit of money and hassling Page.

JM

I thought the leak never happened and revealed only that Wiener's laptop had more emails and the FBI had reopened the investigation. Comey pre-empted the leak by going public and a few days later he announced nothing was found. They spied on Trump for a year and put the country thru hell in addition to 2 impeachments.

[PLATO]

An agent of the FBI lied to the Federal Court to eavesdrop on Page. Not on Trump.

Surely you are aware that the eavesdropping on Page included Trump and strategy sessions of his campaign. I am calling you disingenuous.

That isn't as bad as an agent of the FBI lying to the media in order to harm the campaign of a candidate for president.

You are clearly mistaking the RESULTS for the ACTIONS. The FBI lying to a Federal Court is MUCH worse than the FBI lying to the media. Good Lord...please tell me you get that.

I don't understand whether you are being purposefully dishonest or if you don't understand what Durham and Horowitz actually said and have evidence for (and in this case, proved in court) rather than what right wing media claims as they attack the FBI.

I am not sure if you are just trying save face with people who haven't read the report or are just so biased you can't tell what you are reading. Durham is clear. The FBI had knowledge that their evidence was crap. They certified that it was reliable in writing to FISA, These are facts.

I suppose you missed the part on where Durham explains why he isn't prosecuting. Durham obviously has a lot of respect for many in the FBI and is going with the letter of the law. I respect that. Still the facts are the facts.

What I don't understand is why you don't acknowledge that the FBI has a problem and needs better oversight. Are you so caught up in Hillary whataboutism that you don't see a serious problem here?

JM

[Berzerker]

Why did he say he wouldn't prosecute people? Did he use Mueller's argument for leaving it to others?

[Berzerker]

An agent of the FBI lied to the Federal Court to eavesdrop on Page. Not on Trump.

That isn't as bad as an agent of the FBI lying to the media in order to harm the campaign of a candidate for president.

I don't understand whether you are being purposefully dishonest or if you don't understand what Durham and Horowitz actually said and have evidence for (and in this case, proved in court) rather than what right wing media claims as they attack the FBI.

JM

That was not 1 agent, Comey et al sent the Steele dossier to the court as the main source of information on Page. And the spying was not limited to Page, they got to spy on his associations, including Trump for a year. They could have spied on thousands of people around Page. That was the point, spying on Page wasn't the purpose of the warrant, he was the key to spying on Trump.