My cynicism takes a backseat to no one's, not even at this site, so all I'm about to do here is go straight devil's advocate:
The most positive spin I can think of putting on Durham is that MAYBE he would do much more if he could, but since Garland (et al) won't let him touch anything that actually gets to the heart of the matter, he's revealing as much government malfeasance as he can under the guise of prosecuting Sussman and Danchenko, hoping it will keep some small flame alive that can be stoked when different people are in power.
I realize there are excellent arguments against this and that probably those arguments are also correct. Only time will tell, of course, and I for one am simply left hoping against hope that Durham's report and his post-report behavior will turn out to be things that work against my and so many others' well-founded cynicism.
You're in good company, Devin Nunez tried to say similar but Hannity kept directing him elsewhere. He's putting Facts on the Public Record, a real media would be all over this.
The fundamental problem was that the FBI never had a good reason to suspect that Carter Page was involved in some plot to help Russian Intelligence to use e-mails hacked from Hilary Clinton to affect the USA's 2016 Presidential election.
Especially in retrospect, we know that no such plot ever was carried out. Election Day 2016 came, and there was no embarrassing revelation of Clinton's e-mails. Donald Trump won the election without any such "October Surprise" happening.
If we look back a few weeks before that Election Day, the FBI (and CIA, etc.) could speculate plausibly that such a plot was underway. There were some indications that many Clinton's e-mails had been stolen. There were some indications (e.g. reports from Mifsud and Downer) that some Trump campaign-staff members might be involved in such a plot. In principle, Crossfire Hurricane was valid at least as a preliminary investigation. (I am not sure about the distinctions of various FBI investigations.)
However -- as far as I know -- there never was any real evidence incriminating specifically Carter Page (or Paul Manafort or George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn).
Mainly, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was based on the memo that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer wrote about his wine-cafe conversation with Papadopoulos. The public still has not seen more than a couple sentences of that memo.
When Peter Strzok read Downer's memo, he jumped on an airplane and flew to London and interviewed Downer. The public has not seen the memo that Strzok wrote about that interview. It's likely that Strzok's memo was very tendentious, distorting what Downer actually told Strzok
Which is to say, they never had predication. And that lack carried all the way through the Mueller Witchhunt, too--which tried to piggyback on Crossfire Hurricane's bogus predication. They all knew it.
One of Steele's Dossier reports remarked that Carter Page recently had met with some high-ranking Russian Government official.
It's likely that some FBI official (Michael Gaeta?) coached Steele to insert that remark, thus providing a needed detail for the FISA application.
However, even that remark in the Dossier report did not really incriminate Page in the supposed plot to use stolen Clinton e-mails for an "October Surprise" in the USA's 2016 Presidential election.
Page had been doing legitimate business in Russia for several years. The fact that he met with some high-ranking Russian official was not suspicious.
Mike, within the Dossier there are several indications that Steele was coached on how to write the entries so that they would conform with US law--FISA law. For example, the necessity for "clandestine intel activity" is covered by the claim that Page engaged in "secret meetings" in Moscow, i.e., clandestine meetings. Not just conducted "meetings." I believe there are also suggestions of a quid pro quo, with Page acting as the cutout for the Trump organization. To me this all looks like he was coached by someone who knew FISA requirements.
FWIW, this thing makes my eyes glaze over. I certainly agree that the issues surrounding this whole fiasco cut to the core of the republic but, given all that is going on right now I just don't think JQ Public gives a hoot. It's all just part of the Swamp. In a righteous world, the entire FBI/DC leadership would be ****canned, prosecuted then tarred and feathered on that rail you always read about. Ain't gonna happen. They've dragged this thing out, obscured it with mud and made it indecipherable for the average American. JQP looks at it and thinks, "Ah, they're all corrupt BS artists anyway..."
I once subjected myself to an oral board interview for the FBI. They actually flew me to NYC from the Boston area. Boy, did I think I was something. Looking back now, I'm happy I bombed the thing. Even making it to the oral board was an accomplishment for an enlisted Army, non-pilot, non lawyer, non accountant like me.
Gotta agree with you T.!! I now know how Charlie Brown felt with Lucy and that football. I desperately want something big to happen, but the “common sense” side of me-hey, did you just groan?-keeps telling me that it ain’t gonna happen, no today, not tomorrow, not ever. “Good grief”-apologies to Charles Schultz.
My cynicism takes a backseat to no one's, not even at this site, so all I'm about to do here is go straight devil's advocate:
The most positive spin I can think of putting on Durham is that MAYBE he would do much more if he could, but since Garland (et al) won't let him touch anything that actually gets to the heart of the matter, he's revealing as much government malfeasance as he can under the guise of prosecuting Sussman and Danchenko, hoping it will keep some small flame alive that can be stoked when different people are in power.
I realize there are excellent arguments against this and that probably those arguments are also correct. Only time will tell, of course, and I for one am simply left hoping against hope that Durham's report and his post-report behavior will turn out to be things that work against my and so many others' well-founded cynicism.
You're in good company, Devin Nunez tried to say similar but Hannity kept directing him elsewhere. He's putting Facts on the Public Record, a real media would be all over this.
So true - good point.
The fundamental problem was that the FBI never had a good reason to suspect that Carter Page was involved in some plot to help Russian Intelligence to use e-mails hacked from Hilary Clinton to affect the USA's 2016 Presidential election.
Especially in retrospect, we know that no such plot ever was carried out. Election Day 2016 came, and there was no embarrassing revelation of Clinton's e-mails. Donald Trump won the election without any such "October Surprise" happening.
If we look back a few weeks before that Election Day, the FBI (and CIA, etc.) could speculate plausibly that such a plot was underway. There were some indications that many Clinton's e-mails had been stolen. There were some indications (e.g. reports from Mifsud and Downer) that some Trump campaign-staff members might be involved in such a plot. In principle, Crossfire Hurricane was valid at least as a preliminary investigation. (I am not sure about the distinctions of various FBI investigations.)
However -- as far as I know -- there never was any real evidence incriminating specifically Carter Page (or Paul Manafort or George Papadopoulos or Michael Flynn).
Mainly, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was based on the memo that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer wrote about his wine-cafe conversation with Papadopoulos. The public still has not seen more than a couple sentences of that memo.
When Peter Strzok read Downer's memo, he jumped on an airplane and flew to London and interviewed Downer. The public has not seen the memo that Strzok wrote about that interview. It's likely that Strzok's memo was very tendentious, distorting what Downer actually told Strzok
Which is to say, they never had predication. And that lack carried all the way through the Mueller Witchhunt, too--which tried to piggyback on Crossfire Hurricane's bogus predication. They all knew it.
One of Steele's Dossier reports remarked that Carter Page recently had met with some high-ranking Russian Government official.
It's likely that some FBI official (Michael Gaeta?) coached Steele to insert that remark, thus providing a needed detail for the FISA application.
However, even that remark in the Dossier report did not really incriminate Page in the supposed plot to use stolen Clinton e-mails for an "October Surprise" in the USA's 2016 Presidential election.
Page had been doing legitimate business in Russia for several years. The fact that he met with some high-ranking Russian official was not suspicious.
Mike, within the Dossier there are several indications that Steele was coached on how to write the entries so that they would conform with US law--FISA law. For example, the necessity for "clandestine intel activity" is covered by the claim that Page engaged in "secret meetings" in Moscow, i.e., clandestine meetings. Not just conducted "meetings." I believe there are also suggestions of a quid pro quo, with Page acting as the cutout for the Trump organization. To me this all looks like he was coached by someone who knew FISA requirements.
This actually seems more interesting to me:
https://twitter.com/RetroCoast/status/1580922958410752001
Update: Newly released 302 forms show that Jeffrey Epstein served as a paid informant of the FBI for two decades
No idea whether it's true or not.
Why am I unsurprised…
FWIW, this thing makes my eyes glaze over. I certainly agree that the issues surrounding this whole fiasco cut to the core of the republic but, given all that is going on right now I just don't think JQ Public gives a hoot. It's all just part of the Swamp. In a righteous world, the entire FBI/DC leadership would be ****canned, prosecuted then tarred and feathered on that rail you always read about. Ain't gonna happen. They've dragged this thing out, obscured it with mud and made it indecipherable for the average American. JQP looks at it and thinks, "Ah, they're all corrupt BS artists anyway..."
I once subjected myself to an oral board interview for the FBI. They actually flew me to NYC from the Boston area. Boy, did I think I was something. Looking back now, I'm happy I bombed the thing. Even making it to the oral board was an accomplishment for an enlisted Army, non-pilot, non lawyer, non accountant like me.
Gotta agree with you T.!! I now know how Charlie Brown felt with Lucy and that football. I desperately want something big to happen, but the “common sense” side of me-hey, did you just groan?-keeps telling me that it ain’t gonna happen, no today, not tomorrow, not ever. “Good grief”-apologies to Charles Schultz.
What / Who else did Danchenko touch that can be revealed in the trial?
Such treachery.
Totally agree!! Durham is DS too. Hope he proves me wrong. I should say pray he proves me wrong.