Durham: No evidence Russia case was U.S. intelligence setup
- Thread starter Kenneth Griffin
- Start date
The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.
Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public.
AD
But the intelligence agencies said the professor was not among their assets, the people said. And Durham informed Horowitz’s office that his investigation had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point.
Trump defends Barr after report claims AG rejects inspector general’s finding about Russia probe
President Trump reacted Dec. 3 to reports that Attorney General William P. Barr disagrees with the DOJ's general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation. (The Washington Post)
Spokespeople for the inspector general’s office, Durham and the Justice Department declined to comment.
The previously unreported interaction with Durham is noted in a draft of Horowitz’s forthcoming report on the Russia investigation, which concludes that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its Russia investigation, people familiar with the matter said. Its public release is set for Monday.
That could rebut conservatives’ doubts — which Barr has shared with associates in recent weeks — that Horowitz might be blessing the FBI’s Russia investigation prematurely and that Durham could potentially find more, particularly with regard to the Maltese professor.
AD
ADVERTISING
What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said | The Fact Checker
As it turns out, the attorney general took liberties in describing the results of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. (Joy Sharon Yi/The Washington Post)
The draft, though, is not final. The inspector general has yet to release any conclusions, and The Washington Post has not reviewed Horowitz’s entire report, even in draft form. It is also unclear whether Durham has shared the entirety of his findings and evidence with the inspector general or merely answered a specific question.
Barr disputes key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Trump and his allies have relentlessly criticized the FBI probe, which was taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, as a “witch hunt” and pushed for investigations of those who launched it. They have been eagerly anticipating the release of Horowitz’s report in hopes the watchdog with a nonpartisan reputation might validate their attacks.
Barr told CBS News in May that some of the facts he had learned about the Russia case “don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.” He declined to be more specific. In response to recent reports about Barr’s skepticism about the forthcoming inspector general report, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement that the watchdog’s investigation “is a credit to the Department of Justice.”
AD
“His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” Kupec said. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Horowitz’s draft report concludes that political bias did not taint how top FBI officials running the investigation handled the case, people familiar with the matter said. But it details troubling misconduct that Trump and his allies are likely to emphasize as they criticize the bureau.
Justice Dept. watchdog finds political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI’s Russia probe but documents errors
In particular, Horowitz’s team found omissions in the FBI’s applications to renew warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, people familiar with the matter said.
AD
The applications relied at least in part on information provided by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was hired to investigate Trump by an opposition research firm working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Relying on a network of sources and subsources, Steele claimed he had information on connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He passed that information to the FBI.
When FBI agents interviewed one of Steele’s subsources, they found Steele’s information — which he had said was raw intelligence in need of further investigation — was not entirely reliable, people familiar with the matter said. And Horowitz determined in the draft of his report that the FBI failed to convey as much in some of the later applications to surveil Page, the people said.
AD
Those omissions, while significant, were apparently not so egregious as to convince Horowitz to conclude that the renewal applications should have been rejected. It would be unusual for the inspector general to sit in judgment over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s determinations, because his job is to review how the information was gathered and presented to the court, not whether the FISA court should have approved or rejected specific applications.
Horowitz also found that a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, doctored an email that was used as part of the warrant application process — potentially significant misconduct that Durham is now exploring as a possible crime, people familiar with the matter said.
Clinesmith, who has not responded to inquiries about the inspector general’s findings, is a familiar name to Republicans critical of the FBI. In a previous report on the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, Horowitz found that the lawyer sent messages suggesting a dislike of Trump, including one saying “Viva le resistance.”
AD
When questioned by the inspector general about such messages, Clinesmith said that many of them were jokes and that he did not let his political views affect his work. A draft of Horowitz’s report criticizes as careless another low-level FBI agent who had some involvement in the Russia probe, the people said, though the exact reasons for that remain unclear.
Barr taps U.S. attorney in Connecticut to investigate origins of Russia probe
Horowitz’s report addresses in detail the cause — referred to in law enforcement circles as “predication” — for opening the Russia investigation. The bureau did so after the Australian government passed to the United States a tip that George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign aide, had boasted about Russia having political dirt on Clinton.
The boasts came before it was publicly known the Kremlin had hacked Democratic emails and stolen information that might be damaging to Clinton’s campaign. Papadopoulos had been told of the possible dirt by Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor.
More at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.
Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public.
AD
But the intelligence agencies said the professor was not among their assets, the people said. And Durham informed Horowitz’s office that his investigation had not produced any evidence that might contradict the inspector general’s findings on that point.
Trump defends Barr after report claims AG rejects inspector general’s finding about Russia probe
President Trump reacted Dec. 3 to reports that Attorney General William P. Barr disagrees with the DOJ's general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation. (The Washington Post)
Spokespeople for the inspector general’s office, Durham and the Justice Department declined to comment.
The previously unreported interaction with Durham is noted in a draft of Horowitz’s forthcoming report on the Russia investigation, which concludes that the FBI had adequate cause to launch its Russia investigation, people familiar with the matter said. Its public release is set for Monday.
That could rebut conservatives’ doubts — which Barr has shared with associates in recent weeks — that Horowitz might be blessing the FBI’s Russia investigation prematurely and that Durham could potentially find more, particularly with regard to the Maltese professor.
AD
ADVERTISING
What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said | The Fact Checker
As it turns out, the attorney general took liberties in describing the results of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. (Joy Sharon Yi/The Washington Post)
The draft, though, is not final. The inspector general has yet to release any conclusions, and The Washington Post has not reviewed Horowitz’s entire report, even in draft form. It is also unclear whether Durham has shared the entirety of his findings and evidence with the inspector general or merely answered a specific question.
Barr disputes key inspector general finding about FBI’s Russia investigation
Trump and his allies have relentlessly criticized the FBI probe, which was taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, as a “witch hunt” and pushed for investigations of those who launched it. They have been eagerly anticipating the release of Horowitz’s report in hopes the watchdog with a nonpartisan reputation might validate their attacks.
Barr told CBS News in May that some of the facts he had learned about the Russia case “don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.” He declined to be more specific. In response to recent reports about Barr’s skepticism about the forthcoming inspector general report, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement that the watchdog’s investigation “is a credit to the Department of Justice.”
AD
“His excellent work has uncovered significant information that the American people will soon be able to read for themselves,” Kupec said. “Rather than speculating, people should read the report for themselves next week, watch the Inspector General’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and draw their own conclusions about these important matters.”
Horowitz’s draft report concludes that political bias did not taint how top FBI officials running the investigation handled the case, people familiar with the matter said. But it details troubling misconduct that Trump and his allies are likely to emphasize as they criticize the bureau.
Justice Dept. watchdog finds political bias did not taint top officials running the FBI’s Russia probe but documents errors
In particular, Horowitz’s team found omissions in the FBI’s applications to renew warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, people familiar with the matter said.
AD
The applications relied at least in part on information provided by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who was hired to investigate Trump by an opposition research firm working for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Relying on a network of sources and subsources, Steele claimed he had information on connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. He passed that information to the FBI.
When FBI agents interviewed one of Steele’s subsources, they found Steele’s information — which he had said was raw intelligence in need of further investigation — was not entirely reliable, people familiar with the matter said. And Horowitz determined in the draft of his report that the FBI failed to convey as much in some of the later applications to surveil Page, the people said.
AD
Those omissions, while significant, were apparently not so egregious as to convince Horowitz to conclude that the renewal applications should have been rejected. It would be unusual for the inspector general to sit in judgment over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s determinations, because his job is to review how the information was gathered and presented to the court, not whether the FISA court should have approved or rejected specific applications.
Horowitz also found that a low-level FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, doctored an email that was used as part of the warrant application process — potentially significant misconduct that Durham is now exploring as a possible crime, people familiar with the matter said.
Clinesmith, who has not responded to inquiries about the inspector general’s findings, is a familiar name to Republicans critical of the FBI. In a previous report on the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, Horowitz found that the lawyer sent messages suggesting a dislike of Trump, including one saying “Viva le resistance.”
AD
When questioned by the inspector general about such messages, Clinesmith said that many of them were jokes and that he did not let his political views affect his work. A draft of Horowitz’s report criticizes as careless another low-level FBI agent who had some involvement in the Russia probe, the people said, though the exact reasons for that remain unclear.
Barr taps U.S. attorney in Connecticut to investigate origins of Russia probe
Horowitz’s report addresses in detail the cause — referred to in law enforcement circles as “predication” — for opening the Russia investigation. The bureau did so after the Australian government passed to the United States a tip that George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign aide, had boasted about Russia having political dirt on Clinton.
The boasts came before it was publicly known the Kremlin had hacked Democratic emails and stolen information that might be damaging to Clinton’s campaign. Papadopoulos had been told of the possible dirt by Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor.
More at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e084dc-16a9-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html
So, that's at least 2 conspiracy theories shot to hell this week.
That the investigation into Papodoplus came from lower level FBI folks and was illegal, and this one.
That the investigation into Papodoplus came from lower level FBI folks and was illegal, and this one.
Where's Lone Clone to inform us that we don't know this for sure?
Another "Release the memo" kind of deal.
Try as they might, this administration (and their cronies) can't get their bombshells to go off. All the while trying to get everyone to ignore the actual bombshells exploding in their faces.
I'm right here. We don't know this for sure.Where's Lone Clone to inform us that we don't know this for sure?
It wouldn't be necessary to point this out to anybody with even half a brain, but since you seem to need help, I'll step forward to provide it.
You should know that you've turned a corner away from reality when you won't even believe the hand picked guy to find a conspiracy says there is no conspiracy.
If Durham had found something to bolster Trump's claim, than Dear Leader would have tweeted about it, and then rushed out to the Rose Garden to scream about it and wave a clutch of notes in the air.
I'll wait for Barr's memo on this before commenting
Seriously, am I missing something here? It's my understanding that the orgasm you folks are experiencing is based on a blogger repeating a leak. Is there more to it than that? If so, I'd appreciate a link.
Post here when the blistering report is released detailing the full scope and scale of the Deep State's assault on Trump.
Well,, I guess you, like Joe, have been ignoring my posts for the past year or so warning anti-Trump people not to get their hopes up too high for the IG and Durham reports. But did I miss something about the source of this thread? If I did, I'd like to know.
I don't disagree with that -- the part about what Trump would do. Has the report been released? I didn't think it was finished yet.
How did any of these guys do an investigation if there was no evidence of a crime? It's like they went on a hunt searching for a crime and I was of the understanding that is bad.
By "these guys" are you referring to the Barr/Durham people, the Comey people, the CIA people, or the Trump defenders on HROT?
OK, I see it's a WaPo story of a leak, not just a blog of a leak. That does make a difference. But even if it's accurate, it doesn't change anything I have written on the subject.
Don't MAGAts, particularly this stage of the colossal failure we are in as a Country literally have to be living in the Twilight zone to continue to support and enable the most corrupt, worst President in history? Are they that mentally impaired they don't even know what they are enabling/doing to this Country?
They don't care. The judicial system is getting packed with unqualified conservative ideologues. That's all they care about. Oh, and annoying the Libtards. They certainly care nothing about our Constitution, the Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances and the rule of law.
LIterally a laughing stock of yes man hacks for President Dumps Cabinet and yes I've noticed Clowns being pushed through by the GOP Cons in the Senate of people who have 0 business holding that position. **** the GOP. Traitors. Wake up voters of these hacks, you are the problem.
an investigation in search of a crime done in private?
Why do you think this leaked now?
I have a theory. Someone doesn't want Barr writing a summary before the IG report is released. Someone wants a few things on the record that cannot be wall papered over. This report apparently will point out some malfeasance on a lower level. We don't know how bad and/or the motivations, so Horowitz may have a few things that Trump may point to as being unfair to him, or to someone. But, someone really wanted Durham's findings to be out there.
That's a reasonable theory. I have another. Quite often these -- this one, and the one about the IG report we saw last week -- are prophylactic leaks (not to be confused with leaky prophylactics, which is an entirely different problem). They are intended to get out front of a story to soften the impact when the news hits, and/or to guide the reaction.
In this case, that isn't really necessary. If Durham reports that Clapper wasn't involved in the Russiagate thing, but was the brains behind 911,, the MSM will just trumpet that he was exonerated.
Thoughtful answer until you ruined it with the last paragraph.
At this point, what I have surmised is that the Dems "may not have much of a case" vs. Trump........but the GOPers have much less vs. the Dems, Hilary and Joe/Hunter. What the GOPers have been able to do somewhat successfully is deflect and have the people take their collective eye off the ball.
If Ol' Landslide was alive....he'd have the Repubbers taking a shit in main display window at Macy's in downtown NYC at high noon.
If Ol' Landslide was alive....he'd have the Repubbers taking a shit in main display window at Macy's in downtown NYC at high noon.
What "reaction" are we "trying to get out in front of" here?
Generally, those prophylactic leaks occur before some major "bombshell" that someone is trying to soften. What is being "softened": that there's no evidence Trump was set up, and that the original investigation was properly predicated?
Last edited:
Seriously... has anyone ever given the impression that this was a setup by the FBI or even the IC?
I thinks its always been more along the lines of they took rumor, innuendo and half-truths and tried to connect dots that weren't connectable and then investigated Trump for how he acted after wrongly being accused of being a Russian puppet.
I thinks its always been more along the lines of they took rumor, innuendo and half-truths and tried to connect dots that weren't connectable and then investigated Trump for how he acted after wrongly being accused of being a Russian puppet.
This actually made me laugh, so thanks for that.
Lots more, here's Meadows talking about spying.
This is a problem that will plague my grandchildren’s America. This has been the conservative ideal since the days of Ronald Reagan....not that he was smart enough to see how he was being used by the Right. This has been a brilliant maneuver and a much more subtle obfiscation of The Constitution than Ol’ Chuck and Moscow Mitch’s Supreme Court maneuver of a few years ago.
May be some additional info here.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...y-trumps-predictions-william-barr/2597748001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...y-trumps-predictions-william-barr/2597748001/
dont forget this clown
George Papadopoulos says Mueller report ‘shows that I was clearly set up’
https://apnews.com/8d907c8cf85ef319d77ac47536bc70a5
Lone Clone will parrot this from a John Solomon Op Ed. Then claim that Solomon's info came directly from the Mueller Report that he never read.
because of all the leaks that came out during the last two years and were wrong, I will withhold judgement until the full report. Additionally Mueller said the same thing about Russia and trump[no connection] that did not cause the dems to stop the lies
Huh?
Mueller found LOTS of "connections" AND "collusion".
Roger Stone is going to jail for it.
What Mueller could not prove was "conspiracy".
You should actually read those sections of the Mueller Report dealing with Russian connections. Then go read the Senate Intel Committee Report (Two Volumes of it), outlining much of the same. That was authored and signed off by GOP Senators.
Turn off the Fox News pundits, Use.Your.Brain and read the factual info.
"Impression"? No.
They've outright asserted it. That's been the "defense" this whole time, Rumpelstiltskin.
