"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," Durham said in his statement, adding that his “investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department” and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."
The Horowitz report and statements from a former Trump aide hint at possible entrapment and abuse of FISA warrants by surveillance agencies under the Obama Administration:
Horowitz noted that the FBI omitted exculpatory statements by former Trump aide George Papadopoulos in its surveillance warrant application to surveil another ex-Trump aide, Carter Page… . . Papadopoulos previously told Fox News he was convinced the CIA was behind an “operation” in which he met with two individuals in London in late 2016 who tried to probe whether the Trump campaign had ties to Russia. He later said he would head to Greece to obtain money in a safe from the FBI or CIA that he said was intended to entrap him.
Claims from Papadopoulos that the Obama CIA attempted to entrap the Trump campaign and used misleading information to get FISA warrants raise serious questions about the possible abuse of the power of the government surveillance agencies for political purposes.
My opinion is that Durham must have solid additional information beyond that in the IG report or else he would have remained silent. Do you agree?
Durham’s investigation is based on a broader review of available information than that used in the IG report. That is why he said:
“investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department” and "has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."
The additional information may provide insights into the purpose and methods used to for launch the investigation. If there is solid evidence that starting point for the investigation was an attempt to harass and intimidate the Trump campaign for political purposes, then the implications are huge.
Yep. We heard nothing but Russia collusion for most of three years until it was obvious that there was nothing there. Now its quid pro quo, no uh . . . bribery, uh . . . abuse of power . . .
What did the focus group say is the best phrase de jour?
The real story has always been the abuse of surveillance power for political purposes.
This is why conspiracy theories never die. There is always something else or some other explanation. They point at different rocks, then when they run out of rocks… they create one and complain about that rock.