a fan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:24 pm
If Horowitz is looking into origins of the Russian investigation, what's Durham doing?
And why isn't Barr letting Horowitz finish his report?
Horowitz is looking into potential abuse of the FISA process. His jurisdiction is limited to DoJ.
Horowitz has finished his report. It's undergoing classification & redaction for imminent release.
Horowitz has reportedly made criminal referrals to Durham.
Durham is looking into the predicate for the investigation of the Trump campaign. His jurisdiction is not limited to DoJ.
His inquiry has reportedly grown into a formal criminal investigation with a grand jury.
Hasn't Rachel done an explainer on this yet ?
Where is the memo describing the scope of the investigation and definition of authority? We got one from Double R regarding Mueller.
Neither is a Special Counsel, appointed for a specific investigation.
They're both just doing their job.
a fan wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 10:24 pm
If Horowitz is looking into origins of the Russian investigation, what's Durham doing?
And why isn't Barr letting Horowitz finish his report?
Horowitz is looking into potential abuse of the FISA process. His jurisdiction is limited to DoJ.
Horowitz has finished his report. It's undergoing classification & redaction for imminent release.
Horowitz has reportedly made criminal referrals to Durham.
Durham is looking into the predicate for the investigation of the Trump campaign. His jurisdiction is not limited to DoJ.
His inquiry has reportedly grown into a formal criminal investigation with a grand jury.
Hasn't Rachel done an explainer on this yet ?
Where is the memo describing the scope of the investigation and definition of authority? We got one from Double R regarding Mueller.
Neither is a Special Counsel, appointed for a specific investigation.
They're both just doing their job.
"their job", for who?
We all know that their findings will never be full reported. Any "report" will be redacted, but the r's will all give us the Cliff Notes...
It will all be politically beneficial to o d.
Just more waste of taxpaper time and money...
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am Mr moderator, deactivate my account. You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy. This is cradle and shoot signing out.
We will see how the Horowitz and Durham investigations play out, but I am suspicious of Barr/Trump’s motives for hiring Durham before the IG finished his work. On the surface, it seems Barr/Trump were concerned the IG wouldn’t “deliver the goods” so they felt they needed to launch a nearly identical investigation over which they would have much greater control.
Horowitz was asked last year by Sessions to investigate alleged FISA abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI. In particular, he was to examine the original Carter Page FISA application and the three renewals. He was also tasked with reviewing the DOJ’s and the FBI’s dealings with Steele. Potential “targets” (not in the criminal sense) of the IG’s investigation include Comey, Yates, McCabe, and Rosenstein, a veritable Who’s Who of Trump twitter targets.
In April of this year, Barr appointed Durham to review the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. (I don’t think the official appointment document has been made public as Mueller’s was.) Durham was given the authority to examine the government's collection of intelligence involving the Trump campaign's interactions with Russians.
Is Durham’s investigation broader than the IG’s? Yes, at least in terms of its technical scope. But is the difference all that material? Certainly the core issues of each are virtually identical since the original Carter Page FISA application was the origin (or darn close to it) of the Russia investigation.
So why did Barr appoint Durham before Horowitz was finished? In normal circumstances, one would await the outcome of the IG’s investigation before deciding whether a second investigation (Durham) was warranted. If the IG found there was nothing out of order in the FISA process, then, ipso facto, the Russia investigation was legitimately launched and there would be no need for Durham.
I suspect that either Barr had gotten wind of the IG’s tentative conclusions (which weren’t to Barr/Trump’s liking) or he knew from the jump that there was no there there. In either event Barr/Trump decided they needed a second, nearly parallel, investigation over which Barr would have much greater control.
On September 13, the IG sent a draft of his factual findings to the DOJ and the FBI for those organizations to determine what contents may be classified and to provide any necessary redactions. The IG has said that after he has heard from the DOJ/FBI, he will prepare a public report. September 13 was over seven weeks ago. What is taking so long? The redactions to the 400+ page Mueller report took far less time. Is Barr really engaged in a bona fide redaction process or is he sitting on the report because it does not comport with his and Trump’s political agenda?
On October 24, news broke that Durham’s investigation had become criminal in nature (not clear when that happened), which allows him to convene a grand jury, subpoena witnesses, and bring criminal charges. Yes, some say the IG has made criminal referrals to Durham. Maybe. (While an IG can make criminal referrals, usually they are to the appropriate US Attorney. There was no need for Durham to be appointed to handle any criminal referrals from the IG.) Or maybe Durham is pursing something on his own. Or maybe this was a Barr PR stunt.
Let’s see whether Durham indicts anyone and, if so, for what? Important actual substantive violations of law or parking tickets?
I had never heard of Durham, but from what I read, he has a good reputation. One would hope he wouldn’t get involved in bringing phony criminal charges against Trump’s political opponents, but the ugly specter of that sure is hanging in the air. There is no doubt in my mind that Trump would stop at nothing to have an “official” government report issued (indictments would be his wet dream) critical of Obama and the so-called Deep State “operatives” in the DOJ and the FBI.
a fan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:26 pm
And that's fine, but I'm just curious where you came up with the idea that all that Horowitz was examining was FISA. I can't find that claim anywhere.
Have a citation? Not challenging. Just asking. And if you're right, then the Durham appointment makes sense. That's why I was asking.
Sheesh. I'm not your personal google machine.
Just google [Horowitz FISA].
Syrian Democratic Forces commander Mazloum Abdi, also known as Kobani, recently rejected simultaneous calls from the Syrian Defense Ministry, Interior Ministry and Education Ministry to re-establish services across the largely self-ruling northeast, arguing that such a plan would need to be accompanied by a political solution.
Assad has always maintained that he would reclaim the entirety of the country through diplomacy or force, but appeared to soften his tone in his recent interview, potentially acknowledging somewhat of a new status quo.
"The situation will not return as before. There are facts on the ground which need to be addressed, and this will take time," Assad said. "There are new facts related to people on the ground that took place when the state was absent. There are armed groups, we do not expect them to hand over their weapons immediately. Our policy should be gradual and rational, and should take the facts into account, but the ultimate goal is to return to the situation as it used to be previously which is the full control of the state."
Makes perfect sense for the Russians. They have what they want, Latakia and Tartus. Why go looking for trouble? The oil is an irrelevance to them and the rest of the world. They have Assad on a leash. Turkey is the turd in the punch bowl but Russia doesn't care about that either.
a fan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:26 pm
And that's fine, but I'm just curious where you came up with the idea that all that Horowitz was examining was FISA. I can't find that claim anywhere.
Have a citation? Not challenging. Just asking. And if you're right, then the Durham appointment makes sense. That's why I was asking.
Sheesh. I'm not your personal google machine.
Just google [Horowitz FISA].
I did google. Nowhere does it say that he's limited to FISA, and FISA alone. Your links included.
a fan wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:26 pm
And that's fine, but I'm just curious where you came up with the idea that all that Horowitz was examining was FISA. I can't find that claim anywhere.
Have a citation? Not challenging. Just asking. And if you're right, then the Durham appointment makes sense. That's why I was asking.
Sheesh. I'm not your personal google machine.
Just google [Horowitz FISA].
I did google. Nowhere does it say that he's limited to FISA, and FISA alone. Your links included.
It's the reason his investigation was started.
His jurisdiction (who he can interview) is limited to DoJ.
It's an administrative inquiry, NOT a criminal investigation.
An IG is not a Federal Prosecutor.
If an IG discovers suspected criminal activity, it is referred to a prosecutor.
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:19 pm
I'm not looking to pick a fight. What I wrote is factual. Horowitz is not limited by any document we can find to FISA.
That's all. I'm not claiming anything else. All I did was ask you where you got the idea that he was limited to FISA.
Appreciate the responses.
He's like any IG. He needs a specific trigger to initiate a focused review/inquiry of a specific incident, individual or process.
It could be a letter from Congress urging an IG inquiry.
IG's don't do roaming, wide ranging fishing expeditions. If they find something amiss, outside their lane, but still within their jurisdiction, they can widen their review, refer to another Dept's IG with overlapping jurisdiction, or do a criminal referral, if appropriate.
An IG investigation is not as intimidating or as threatening as an investigation by a Federal Prosecutor.
old salt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:33 pm
If they find something amiss, outside their lane, but still within their jurisdiction, they can widen their review, refer to another Dept's IG with overlapping jurisdiction, or do a criminal referral, if appropriate.
I understand that. The problem is that you and I can't find any documentation telling us what that lane is.......
The recent events in Syria should be seen as shocking but not surprising. Trump’s recent decisions allowed a quick and dramatic flaring of violence, but his policies alone did not cause the insecurity and conflict. Policies that preceded him and created uncertainly and fragility in the region did. Two years before Trump was sworn in, the Obama administration and its allies prioritized short-term military objectives and seemingly ignored the political consequences of doing so.
The danger now is that the U.S. and other governments, rather than acknowledging the risks and dilemmas associated with “by, with, and through” and other forms of proxy war, will continue to present remote warfare as a low-cost, low-risk form of engagement. As the international community unites in outrage at Trump’s policies once again, it would be naïve and even dangerous to see them as a complete break from the past. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can put to bed the myth of risk-free war.
The recent events in Syria should be seen as shocking but not surprising. Trump’s recent decisions allowed a quick and dramatic flaring of violence, but his policies alone did not cause the insecurity and conflict. Policies that preceded him and created uncertainly and fragility in the region did. Two years before Trump was sworn in, the Obama administration and its allies prioritized short-term military objectives and seemingly ignored the political consequences of doing so.
The danger now is that the U.S. and other governments, rather than acknowledging the risks and dilemmas associated with “by, with, and through” and other forms of proxy war, will continue to present remote warfare as a low-cost, low-risk form of engagement. As the international community unites in outrage at Trump’s policies once again, it would be naïve and even dangerous to see them as a complete break from the past. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can put to bed the myth of risk-free war.
You left out the part where Trump losing his patience exacerbated the situation. Guess it's time we get over Trump losing Syria to Russia.
foreverlax wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:42 pm Guess it's time we get over Trump losing Syria to Russia.
Why do you believe that forever...seems he never wanted it in the first place?
No one wanted it...we all agree on that. Nothing we did or didn't do still gets us to the hot mess that is the Middle East. I believe most POTUS don't want the hassle that comes from war - while some of their advisors relish in it.
Regardless of what he did or didn't do, Syria has been lost to Vlad/Iran/Assad, on his watch.
https://freebeacon.com/national-securit ... -s-europe/ I was wondering when some of the bad guys would catch on to how vulnerable the nation is here. One bad guy with a zippo could burn half of California in one afternoon. the only question is will there be follow through?
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:20 amhttps://freebeacon.com/national-securit ... -s-europe/ I was wondering when some of the bad guys would catch on to how vulnerable the nation is here. One bad guy with a zippo could burn half of California in one afternoon. the only question is will there be follow through?
That can't be true...Trump said ISIS is no longer a threat. They are thousands of miles away and are being help captive in Syria.
