US Attorney John Durham rejects key conclusions from Horowitz report

party-free · December 10, 2019, 1:52pm

That’s REALLY the best you could muster in response? Farmer Trump is pleased at his sheople.

Jamerican · December 10, 2019, 1:55pm

There isn’t a deep state, a shadow government, a B613 (for those who use to watch scandal… ) or a section 31(shout out to Star Trek Discovery… ) or any other secret group trying to overthrow lord Donald. Two of these are actual fictional groups from TV shows, they’re made up just like this Deep State nonsense. I’m so tired of this excuse to cover this president’s corruption, his ineptness to lead or be presidential.

Oryx · December 10, 2019, 1:58pm

Yes. What part of “All corrupt politicians should go to jail” wasn’t clear to you?

Why use such a stupid source, though? I love this part: “The Liberal Media Is Covering This Up!…”

Oops:

Apparently CNN, NYTimes, and CNBC are not the “Liberal Media” according to Gateway Pundit. Or they’re just lying to you.

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 1:58pm

PizzaReverend · December 10, 2019, 2:02pm

He showed his hand. Not once in 30 years has any prosecutor ever offered a public statement contradicting an IG report, especially one related to a matter he was working on.

At this point, he’s become a Barr Stooge, either because he’s a MAGA nut or because he caved in to pressure from above. This is how Dictatorships start 101.

party-free · December 10, 2019, 2:04pm

Oh, Nader was a politician and is now in jail? What office did he hold? That was what Oryx asked-for corrupt politicians that Republicans have thrown in jail.

Jezcoe · December 10, 2019, 2:05pm

Bill.in.PA:

Durham says that his team “do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened”. There is no real disagreement that the FBI investigation and FISA warrants were based on incomplete and misleading information.

For example here is a summary of the IG report’s list of errors and omissions related to the Carter Page FISA application that was critical to launching the surveillance of the Trump campaign:

DOJ IG: 'At Least 17 Significant Errors or Omissions in Carter Page FISA'

A question is whether the long list of errors and omissions is simply a result of mistakes and incompetence or whether it was a result of politically motivated fraud and conspiracy. Durham’s statement certainly is consistent with an understanding that the errors and omissions were not simply innocent mistakes.

Reports from several weeks ago indicate that the Durham work is now a criminal investigation so we may not have to wait much longer on getting real answers.

Which error do you think is the most egregious?

party-free · December 10, 2019, 2:06pm

Ds don’t THINK Trump used back channel, unofficial representatives to attempt to get Ukraine to say they were investigating Biden, and then hide evidence on an actual secret server.

These are things that happened.

If Hillary is super guilty, then Trump has been negligent in his duties in prosecuting her.

party-free · December 10, 2019, 2:07pm

Sheople bleating dripping something something.

Jezcoe · December 10, 2019, 2:07pm

NebraskaFootball:

DougBH:

I don’t want to comment too much because currently the accusation of “you haven’t read the report” would actually be true. How many people authoritatively commenting here have read even one forth of the report?
Clearly if Durham looked at areas that Horowitz did not look at (Brennan, Clapper?) we wait for that report to see what new light they may show.

I have read the report. But I’m sure I’m in a small group here.

And I agree. If Durham has additional evidence, then let him bring it forward and have the chips fall where they may.

Although I’m very surprised at his statement. He did not give any information. Just fodder for what appears to be partisan support of a specific narrative. And he did so in the middle of an active investigation, which is highly inappropriate and very extraordinary.

What was the purpose of this statement? Prosecutors don’t typically play political games. They let their work and the evidence do the talking. Look at Mueller as a prime example.

Maybe there is a little bit of hackery going on here.

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 2:14pm

Not once in 230 years has Trump been President.

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 2:15pm

NebraskaFootball · December 10, 2019, 2:18pm

Thank you.

NebraskaFootball · December 10, 2019, 2:19pm

This is definitely how it appears. And if this is the case, then it is really disappointing.

NebraskaFootball · December 10, 2019, 2:20pm

Jezcoe:

NebraskaFootball:

DougBH:

I don’t want to comment too much because currently the accusation of “you haven’t read the report” would actually be true. How many people authoritatively commenting here have read even one forth of the report?
Clearly if Durham looked at areas that Horowitz did not look at (Brennan, Clapper?) we wait for that report to see what new light they may show.

I have read the report. But I’m sure I’m in a small group here.

And I agree. If Durham has additional evidence, then let him bring it forward and have the chips fall where they may.

Although I’m very surprised at his statement. He did not give any information. Just fodder for what appears to be partisan support of a specific narrative. And he did so in the middle of an active investigation, which is highly inappropriate and very extraordinary.

What was the purpose of this statement? Prosecutors don’t typically play political games. They let their work and the evidence do the talking. Look at Mueller as a prime example.

Maybe there is a little bit of hackery going on here.

That is all I can rationalize. I want to believe it is not the case, but what other logical conclusion is there?

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 2:20pm

Motivated reasoning against history. Not logical.

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 2:21pm

Contradiction. Check your premises.

Good of you to admit it.

gooddad409 · December 10, 2019, 2:25pm

Bill.in.PA:

“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.”

All eyes on Durham after rebuke of IG Horowitz's findings | Fox News

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?

Do I agree? absolutely! I never had much confidence in the Obama holdover Horowitz.

Jezcoe · December 10, 2019, 2:25pm

Motivated reasoning is continuing to bring up Strzok and Page after this report.

We discussed t he issue of political bias in a prior OIG report, Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election, where we described text and instant messages bet ween t hen Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page and then Section Chief Peter Strzok, among others, that included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clint on. I n this review, we fou nd that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.

We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigat ions was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among t he Crossfire "Hurricane agents and analyst s who identified indiv iduals associated with t he Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged t ies to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions t o open the four individual investigat ions.

Need a new boogieman.

WuWei · December 10, 2019, 2:27pm

No I don’t. Strzok is still it.