Just what I said. It says that instead of doing a full probe they could have done a preliminary one instead and wouldn't have made fools of themselves. Durham does not endorse what the FBI did.
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Just what I said. It says that instead of doing a full probe they could have done a preliminary one instead and wouldn't have made fools of themselves. Durham does not endorse what the FBI did.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Text from page 295
In implementing these standards, the FBI could have taken one or more of the
following sensible steps:
• Under the least intrusive standard, rather than opening an investigation with a broad
scope ("to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are
witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia"), the FBI
should have focused, at least at the beginning, on Papadopoulos, the alleged source
of the information from Australia. On the other hand, the Paragraph Five
information was not only connected to Papadopoulos, but also to the campaign as an
alleged recipient of "some kind of suggestion from Russia."
• Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more
appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation. FBI investigations
opened as preliminary investigations, short offull investigations, include time limits and
a narrower range of authorized techniques to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary
intrusion. If necessary and appropriate, a lower level of investigative activity may be
escalated under the guidelines by converting to a full investigation with supervisory
approval.
• In the subsequent investigation of Page under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella, the
FBI could have used additional, less intrusive techniques before seeking authority to
conduct electronic surveillance under FISA. The paucity of information collected on
key aspects of Page's activities would support such an approach.
Regardless of an investigator's preference for any of these steps, there are now additional
requirements that apply to the opening of an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane. The
Sensitive Investigations lvlemorandum requires the Attorney General to approve the opening
of such an investigation. That an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane should require a
concurring decision by the Department, rather than any one component or entity, seems
appropriate.
In implementing these standards, the FBI could have taken one or more of the
following sensible steps:
• Under the least intrusive standard, rather than opening an investigation with a broad
scope ("to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are
witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia"), the FBI
should have focused, at least at the beginning, on Papadopoulos, the alleged source
of the information from Australia. On the other hand, the Paragraph Five
information was not only connected to Papadopoulos, but also to the campaign as an
alleged recipient of "some kind of suggestion from Russia."
• Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more
appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation. FBI investigations
opened as preliminary investigations, short offull investigations, include time limits and
a narrower range of authorized techniques to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary
intrusion. If necessary and appropriate, a lower level of investigative activity may be
escalated under the guidelines by converting to a full investigation with supervisory
approval.
• In the subsequent investigation of Page under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella, the
FBI could have used additional, less intrusive techniques before seeking authority to
conduct electronic surveillance under FISA. The paucity of information collected on
key aspects of Page's activities would support such an approach.
Regardless of an investigator's preference for any of these steps, there are now additional
requirements that apply to the opening of an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane. The
Sensitive Investigations lvlemorandum requires the Attorney General to approve the opening
of such an investigation. That an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane should require a
concurring decision by the Department, rather than any one component or entity, seems
appropriate.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It bears keeping in mind that Crossfire Hurricane was opened July 31, 2016. A few weeks after receipt of the information from the Australian government. That in turn was preceded by a few weeks by the dissemination of the hacked emails. It is often overlooked that the dissemination of the hacked emails preceded the receipt of the tip from Australia and informed the FBI's assessment of that tip. I think the FBI acted in a reasonable way given that context. After the Horowitz report they adopted some additional guidelines for opening investigations of that kind. But we have to evaluate their actions in light of existing procedures. There was very little precedent for the kind of situation they were faced with.
Last edited:
There isn't anything there that contradicts me. Even one of your rag news sources says it here. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/john-durham-report-fbi-trump-released/index.html
Tapate50
Well-known member
Stretch guys! Don’t wanna pull anything!
They could have also come out at any time and said there was nothing to this, and closed the book on it.
They didn’t because they knew who they were protecting and that it was total garbage so it went on and on and there was no accountability
They could have also come out at any time and said there was nothing to this, and closed the book on it.
They didn’t because they knew who they were protecting and that it was total garbage so it went on and on and there was no accountability
Two most important things to glean from this:
1) Obama greenlit the operation. A sitting president allowed an illegal spying operation on the opposition candidate. Nothing comes close to this in our nations history. Truly the stuff of dictatorships.
2) The DNC hack was a lie. There is absolutely no proof this took place. Which means Seth Rich was murdered.
1) Obama greenlit the operation. A sitting president allowed an illegal spying operation on the opposition candidate. Nothing comes close to this in our nations history. Truly the stuff of dictatorships.
2) The DNC hack was a lie. There is absolutely no proof this took place. Which means Seth Rich was murdered.
It's the same mindset that we see when Trump spoke to Zelensky and to the Georgia SOS. Libs hear and see whatever they want to.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Show proof the DNC was hacked - You can't and you know it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
John Podesta's gmail account was compromised when he fell for a phishing expedition. The intelligence community assessed the Russians to have been the perps. In particular the hacking group known as Fancy Bear. Wikileaks later disseminated those emails.
A cybersecurity firm named Dell SecureWorks reached the same conclusion and reported some of those conclusions in June 2016.
That isn't the DNC hack buddy - Try again.
And we all know how good the IC is when it comes to pinning blame on RUSSIA!!!!
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
You seem to be making an obscure distinction between the hacks of Podesta's gmail, the DNC, and a third hack at the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). I don't think there is any doubt that Fancy Bear and other Russian operatives broadly targeted individuals and entities associated with the Clinton campaign and disseminated the fruits of the labor via Wikileaks and other means. If you want to hang your hat on some obscure distinction between the DNC hacks and the other ones be my guest. Long live the saga of Seth Rich.
No you are conflating two things that had nothing to do with each other because you know the 'DNC Hack' which was a principal driver of investigations was a complete bull**** story.
I understand why you are doing it but lets not pretend you aren't doing it ok? There is ZERO proof the DNC was hacked.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You are too yellow to prove I ever said collusion was going to be proven by Mueller. You people keep trying to rewrite history to assing opinions to people so you can argue against it. Show the proof sir.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The U.S. Democratic party's governing body, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), uses the dnc.org domain for its staff email. Between mid-March and mid-April 2016, TG-4127 created 16 short links targeting nine dnc.org email accounts. CTU researchers identified the owners of three of these accounts; two belonged to the DNC's secretary emeritus, and one belonged to the communications director. Four of the 16 short links were clicked, three by the senior staff members. As of this publication, dnc.org does not use the Google Apps Gmail email service. However, because dnc.org email accounts were targeted in the same way as hillaryclinton.com accounts, it is likely that dnc.org did use Gmail at that time and later moved to a different service.
CTU researchers do not have evidence that these spearphishing emails are connected to the DNC network compromise that was revealed on June 14. However, a coincidence seems unlikely, and CTU researchers suspect that TG-4127 used the spearphishing emails or similar techniques to gain an initial foothold in the DNC network.
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
This is from SecureWorks in June 2016.
CTU researchers do not have evidence that these spearphishing emails are connected to the DNC network compromise that was revealed on June 14. However, a coincidence seems unlikely, and CTU researchers suspect that TG-4127 used the spearphishing emails or similar techniques to gain an initial foothold in the DNC network.
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
This is from SecureWorks in June 2016.
Last edited:
Nice words here - Still nothing to do with DNC hack which was the 'BIG HACK'.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I stand in admiration that someone can be so delusional that they believe this and think that Donald Trump is the paragon of truth.
