US Attorney Durham objects to IG findings on Russia probe origins in stunning statement

If they had evidence that contradicted Horowitz's conclusions, why wouldn't they have presented it to him?

 

Again, the obvious answer is that Barr and Durham don't need to provide that information to Horowitz.

 

I didn't ask you that. I asked why wouldn't they have wanted to tell Horowitz he was mistaken and shown him evidence of same? You think they didn't trust the IG?

 

They just disagree with him, unfortunately for the Deep State.

 

Horowitz:

"There is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable and the answers we got were not satisfactory, we're left trying to understand how could all of these errors occurred over a nine month period or so among three teams hand picked, the highest profile case in the FBI going to the top of the organization (during ?) a Presidential Campaign."

 

Er...

Because they have information that is outside of his purview?

 

I am guessing...but I would expect him to hold the proper clearance for almost anything classified. Why would they want Horowitz to reach a false conclusion?

 

That hissing sound you hear is the air leaking out of the impeachment balloon.

 

"I am guessing...but I would expect him to hold the proper clearance for almost anything classified."

I'll guess, as well.

As Horowitz proved, the FBI acted in questionable ways.

Can we not entertain the possibility that other agencies engaged in questionable activities?

My understanding is that the IG team determined that after finding out that Papadopoulos had told Downer that Russians had dirt on Hillary, they were justified in beginning an investigation. I didn't read the report, so I don't know if they looked any deeper. Going by today's hearing, it looks like that's as far as they went.

There wasn't any digging into Mifsud and how he came to feed the info to Papadopoulos, nor any look at how Downer came to extract the revelation from Papadopoulos.

In other words, upon finding evidence, an investigator is totally justified in beginning an investigation. At the same time, if it's learned that someone else planted that evidence, the investigation becomes unjustified.

"Why would they want Horowitz to reach a false conclusion?"

The premise of that question assumes facts which are not in evidence. I can't even begin to imagine where it came from.

 

They did tell him he was mistaken, and again they don't need to provide any information to Horowitz.

I don't have any personal or professional relationship with Barr, Durham and Horowitz so I wouldn't know. However, I think this is more of a 'need to know' situation than one concerning trust, and Horowitz doesn't need to know what information Barr and Durham have obtained beyond the scope of Horowitz's investigation.

On the other hand, to your point about 'trust', perhaps Barr and Durham consider the information that they have obtained in their interviews and fact-finding missions in London, Rome and elsewhere sensitive and that information needs to remain confined within Barr and Durham's team(s) of investigators and prosecutors right now.

 

A+ for concision.

 

Trump & his family & his minions are doing precisely what you describe in your post above. Why are you so focused on Obama when Trump is doing what you claim you are against? Why don't you support the Trump impeachment, which is doing exactly what you claim you want done to protect the Constitution? I don't understand your one-sided blindness.

 

Er...

Because it's a fraud.

 

The testimonies by those dedicated, professional intelligence agency workers wasn't fraudulent. They risked their jobs & income to try & warn us of what Trump was doing that imperils the Constitution & our national security. You're simply swallowing the Trump-Republican distraction, & helping Trump continue the destruction.

 

Why are we still going over this?

Their sworn opinions do not prove anything.

 

I suffer criticism for being a man of few words.

 

Insufferable gas bags complain too much.

 

Will the attempt at "coup" to overturn the 2016 election go on forever? It appears likely.

 

There Is/Was NO attempt at a "coup".

There IS a Durham-Led (dead-end) ongoing "Investigation", however.

 

No.....it was stated by the Whistleblower attorney shortly after 2016 "The coup had begun".
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/co...ey-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment
Sure, it is Fox News, but refute it if it is wrong.

 

Turns it's not a coup.. it's a civil war and has been going on for decades.. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/its_not_a_coup_its_a_civil_war.html

 

Sometimes I just wish the enemy would put on uniforms and declare!
Great editorial by the way!

 

Great article. No wonder the LW wants to disarm us. This war on democracy they are waging won't end when Trump is gone.

"Ever since, there have been bureaucrats and presidents who have worked against the will of the majority in order to "overthrow" the duly elected government and replace it with their own view of what the USA government "should" look like. It is a war, not a coup. They are relentless. Indefatigable. They will never stop. What we are seeing with Mr. Trump is an "Antietam" or a "Gettysburg — a bloody battlefield, but just another battlefield.

It isn't a coup. Not soft. Not silent. And if we don't see it as a war, we lose."

 

thank you thank you thank you!

 

The fact that they were sworn testimonies subject to criminal charges if lies were involved, makes them pretty convincing. I can't imagine a dozen professional career government workers risking their careers as well as their personal freedom, just to say something against Donald Trump. Why Republicans feel so strongly they owe something to Trump is beyond my understanding, Trump isn't worthy of such loyalty.