Trump's excuses for delaying aid are destroyed

[TheLiquidGuy]

He didn't break any rules.

If you don't know what you are talking about. You shouldn't talk. If you lived by that rule, we would seldom hear from you.

Calm down.

He did break a rule:

Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.

[TheLiquidGuy]

Untrue. The conclusion was that nobody admitted to political bias. Additionally, 17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court, altering evidence, and withholding exonerating evidence.

Peter, it seems you are the one being misleading here. Here is a direct outtake from the report (pg 14, last paragraph):

"We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified."

That's very different from what you said "17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court"

He found 17 "errors/omissions" not "serious acts of misconduct." He specifically states they didn't find intentional misconduct.

Also, I couldn't find anything about withholding exculpatory or exonerating evidence. Please provide a quotation with page number if your claim is true.

Keep in mind the Carter Page FISA warrant is 412 pages long. So 17 omissions or errors might not seem as bad as you thought

[Cletus]

Calm down.

He did break a rule:

Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.

I don't think Durham's credibility is in question.

On February 22, 2018, John H. Durham was sworn in as the presidentially appointed United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Mr. Durham had served as the interim U.S. Attorney since October 28, 2017, after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions signed an order appointing him to the position. President Donald Trump nominated Mr. Durham to serve as U.S. Attorney on November 1, 2017, and the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination on February 16, 2018.

Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years, prosecuting complex organized crime, violent crime, public corruption and financial fraud matters.

From 2008 to 2017, Mr. Durham served as Counsel to the U.S. Attorney; from 1994 to 2008, he served as the Deputy U.S. Attorney, and served as the U.S. Attorney in an acting and interim capacity in 1997 and 1998; from 1989 to 1994, he served as Chief of the Office’s Criminal Division, and from 1982 to 1989, he served as an attorney and then supervisor in the New Haven Field Office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Racketeering Section.

From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Durham also served as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for the purpose of investigating matters relating to the destruction of certain videotapes by the CIA and the treatment of detainees by the CIA. From 1998 to 2008, Mr. Durham served as a Special Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and Head of the Justice Task Force, where he reviewed alleged criminal conduct by FBI personnel and other law enforcement corruption in Boston, led the prosecution of a former FBI Supervisory Special Agent and a former Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant, and handled direct appeals and related proceedings following convictions after trial.

From 1978 to 1982, Mr. Durham served as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the New Haven State’s Attorney’s Office headed by Arnold Markle, and from 1977 to 1978, he served as a Deputy Assistant State’s Attorney in the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney.

From 1975 to 1977, Mr. Durham worked as a Volunteer in Service to America (VISTA) on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana.

Mr. Durham graduated, with honors, from Colgate University in 1972 and the University of Connecticut School of Law in 1975.

Mr. Durham has served as an Instructor in the Criminal Justice Department at the University of New Haven, as a Moot Court Judge at the Yale School of Law, and as a lecturer for the Connecticut Bar Association.

Mr. Durham is the 52nd U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, an office that was established in 1789.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/meet-us-attorney

[hanger4]

He cannot compel witness. But he can approach and ask. And as I understand it he did speak to alot of people. A few declined. Most didn't.


You didn't address my other two points.


We are getting way off topic. But I should also point out something about Barr. More evidence that the durham report is intended to be political: I just heard that Barr laid out a timeline for when the Durham report will come in. Real investigations are done when they are done. Not when it's conveniently close to a federal election.

Your other points are immaterial to the point/correction made. There is no redundancy.

[hanger4]

Calm down.

He did break a rule:

Do not talk about, or even hint at, the contents of an ongoing investigation.

Now when I say rule, I mean rule. It's not a law. But it's a policy that any credible prosecutors office adheres to.

What content has Durham revealed ??

[Peter1469]

Peter, it seems you are the one being misleading here. Here is a direct outtake from the report (pg 14, last paragraph):

"We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified."

That's very different from what you said "17 serious acts of misconduct occurred, most around misleading the FISA court"

He found 17 "errors/omissions" not "serious acts of misconduct." He specifically states they didn't find intentional misconduct.

Also, I couldn't find anything about withholding exculpatory or exonerating evidence. Please provide a quotation with page number if your claim is true.

Keep in mind the Carter Page FISA warrant is 412 pages long. So 17 omissions or errors might not seem as bad as you thought

They knew the Steele Dossier was fake and used it at the FISA court. That is one reason why Barr and Durham disagree with the IG's finding that nobody deliberately broke the law.

[Peter1469]

What content has Durham revealed ??

Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.

[hanger4]

Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.

Yup, that's it, I'm unaware of any investigation content (who, what, where, when, et al) being publicly dropped or leaked, tis why I asked @TheLiquidGuy to substantiate his 'Durham broke the rules' comment.

[TheLiquidGuy]

Didn't all he say was that the two investigations were different.

Partial Durham statement...

...However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. 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.”

Speaking up at this time was not only unnecessary, but a clear attempt to control the narrative. It belies political motivation. Mueller was the gold standard for being tight lipped and staying out of politics. Thats how this should have been handled as well.

Statement like this are unexpected in real investigations because they are risky and do not even help the investigator to investigate at all. If you were the investigator, why would you take the risk of possibly revealing something that could impede or damage your investigation?

As for what he revealed. He didn't give explicit details, but even general reveals like the ones I bolded are risky and inadvisable. For example, Saying he did not agree with aspects of the IG report obviously reveals something about Durham’s own conclusion. BTW, why does Durham already know his own conclusions when he is not expected to finish until mid 2020? And why does he know he will finish mid 2020? Real investigations are finished when they are finished (and not just when they are close to elections).

[TheLiquidGuy]

Yup, that's it, I'm unaware of any investigation content (who, what, where, when, et al) being publicly dropped or leaked, tis why I asked @TheLiquidGuy to substantiate his 'Durham broke the rules' comment.

See #59