Replies

Part Two of Technofog’s article, links of lying journalists’ lies at link.

https://technofog.substack.com/p/durham-analysis-media-lies-and-political

Durham Analysis: Media Lies and Political Bias
Circumstantial Evidence of Biased Investigations

Shane Harris of The Washington Post said “the dossier was not used as the basis for a FISA warrant on Carter Page.” He hadn’t seen the FISA warrant, but that didn’t stop him from making guarantees about its contents.

Jonah Goldberg, without knowledge of the Page applications or the evidence collected by the FBI, offered insight into the actions of “more than one FISA Court Judge” and the “intelligence collected from Page surveillance that had nothing to do with the Steel dossier.” In fact, as Durham’s report proves, the “Page surveillance” revealed no such intelligence. One FBI Agent told Durham’s team that they targeted Page “in the hope that the returns would ‘self-corroborate.’”

Ken Dilanian at NBC News would report in July 2018: “The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing ‘probable cause’ that Page was an agent of Russia.” His NBC news comrade, Julia Ainsley, would also say that the Page FISAs “didn’t all hinge on the dossier.” She even stated “new evidence was found” against Page.

Reuters DC National Security Correspondent Jonathan Landay made a similar argument, saying the “Dossier played minor role in Page FISA warrant.”

Like the others, Dilanian and Ainsley and Landay were providing assurances and definitive statements on documents they had never thoroughly reviewed. Durham would address the probable cause issue in particular, stating the Steele Reports “were relied on by the FBI to support probable cause in the initial Page FISA application and three renewals of that application.”3

And regarding the “new evidence” that Ainsley said was obtained against Page? Or the surveillance cited by Goldberg?

The Page surveillance was actually a “dry hole.”4 Agents working the case thought it was a waste of their time5 and concluded that “Page was not a witting agent of the Russian government.”6

Unfortunately for the American public, many of these same reporters and newspapers and cable news channels are now interpreting the Durham Report. They focused on unreasonable expectations of the Durham investigation and said it didn’t meet expectations. At the Washington Post, Philip Bump downplayed the Clinton Campaign’s role in the Trump collusion hoax. Others said the report failed to show evidence of politically motivated decisions in the the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates.

In reality, the evidence of politically motivated decisions is there in abundance.

It’s there in the political motives and biases of the key players discussed by Durham. The texts of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, those already in the public domain and said by Durham to “express a very clear prejudice against Trump.”7 The “viva le resistance” statement of Kevin Clinesmith, who doctored an e-mail in furtherance of a Carter Page FISA renewal. The finding from Durham that these statements show “a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump”8 and in Durham’s belief that “it appears likely that political or personal bias contributed at least to some extent to Clinesmith’s conduct in this matter.”9 (Logically, the political predisposition to open the investigation on Trump would also predispose certain investigative decisions.)

It’s there in the FBI’s disparate treatment of the Trump and Clinton investigations.

And it’s there in the comparison of the Carter Page FISA application to the other applications the FBI completed. Durham observed that an audit of 29 other FISA applications contained only 4 material errors. The Carter Page FISA applications contained “a total of 17 material errors and omissions.” To believe bias played no factor is to also ignore the uniqueness of what occurred during the Trump-Russia investigation by parties hostile to Trump.

Do not forget - these were otherwise careful and meticulous FBI agents and officials. Are we really to believe that their out-of-character mistakes were innocent?

Footnotes:

1
Durham Report at p. 124.

2
Durham Report at p. 106.

3
“[F]our Steele Reports (2016/080, 2016/94, 2016/095 and 2016/102) were relied on by the FBI to support probable cause in the initial Page FISA application and three renewals of that application.” Durham Report at p. 123.

4
“Special Agent-I went as far to say that the surveillance on Page was a ‘dry hole.’” Durham Report at p. 104.

5
“Special Agent-1 also recalled that Supervisory Special Agent-3 would often rhetorically ask his investigators, “what are we even doing here.’” Durham Report at p. 104.

6
Durham Report at p. 104.

7
“Over a period of months prior to the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, Strzok and Page had exchanged numerous messages, which are already in the public domain and express a very clear prejudice against Trump.” Durham Report at p. 48.

8
“Although those involved in opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation denied that bias against Trump was a factor in opening the investigation, the communications quoted above quite clearly show, at least on the part of certain personnel intimately involved in the matter, a predisposition to open an investigation into Trump.” Durham Report at 50-51.

9
Durham Report at 232.