Patterico's Pontifications

10/9/2020

Sources: Barr Says No Durham “Report” Before the Election

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Axios:

Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department’s sweeping review into the origins of the Russia investigation will not be released before the election, a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios.

. . . .

Barr has made clear that they should not expect any further indictments or a comprehensive report before Nov. 3, our sources say.

This is not terribly shocking. Durham has always had a reputation as being slow, and I can tell you that COVID has not had the effect of speeding up legal proceedings or investigations. I am tempted to say I am pleased that Durham is not rushing things, despite reports that one of his top aides resigned due to inappropriate pressure to reach conclusions before the election.

But I have a question that goes beyond the timing of a report:

Why would there be a report in the first place?

I know the general public sees this as the flip side of the Mueller report. He did a report; why shouldn’t Durham? But Mueller was operating under special counsel regulations that call for a report. 28 CFR § 600.8 is titled ” Notification and reports by the Special Counsel” and says in relevant part:

(c) Closing documentation. At the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.

There is no comparable regulation for standard criminal investigations, even if they are politically motivated investigations sought by the president. Federal prosecutors (and FBI agents) are to speak through indictments, or not speak at all. This is why James Comey was appropriately castigated for his criticism of Hillary Clinton, given that he was not recommending an indictment.

There should be no “Durham report.” Either indict, or shut up.

UPDATE: Trump is not happy:

President Trump berated his own cabinet officers on Thursday for not prosecuting or implicating his political enemies, lashing out even as he announced that he hoped to return to the campaign trail on Saturday just nine days after he tested positive for the coronavirus.

. . . .

The president castigated his own team, declaring that Attorney General William P. Barr would go down in history “as a very sad, sad situation” if he did not indict Democrats like Mr. Biden and former President Barack Obama. He complained that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had not released Hillary Clinton’s emails, saying, “I’m not happy about him for that reason.” And he targeted Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director. “He’s been disappointing,” Mr. Trump said.

“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes, the greatest political crime in the history of our country, then we’re going to get little satisfaction unless I win and we’ll just have to go, because I won’t forget it,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the investigation into his 2016 campaign ties with Russia. “But these people should be indicted. This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country, and that includes Obama and it includes Biden.”

Mr. Trump has often argued that his political antagonists should be prosecuted, but in this case, he went further by indicating that he had directly pressured Mr. Barr to indict without waiting for more evidence. “He’s got all the information he needs,” the president said. “They want to get more, more, more, they keep getting more. I said, ‘You don’t need any more.’”

That sounds gobsmackingly inappropriate and it’s a good indicator of why I will vote the way I intend to vote.

171 Responses to “Sources: Barr Says No Durham “Report” Before the Election”

  1. Mr. Trump has often argued that his political antagonists should be prosecuted, but in this case, he went further by indicating that he had directly pressured Mr. Barr to indict without waiting for more evidence.

    So they’re suggesting that Trump’s unhinged and obnoxious speech is not merely style, but may have some connection with how he actually thinks, and acts?

    That’s TDS. Trump has truly “broken” you if you entertain such a notion.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  2. This is why James Comey was appropriately castigated for his criticism of Hillary Clinton, given that he was not recommending an indictment.

    I always thought that Comey’s comments were indicative of a man who strongly believed indictments should have been brought, and knew that political favoritism had won the day. So he lashed out and dared the AG to fire him.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  3. Much like Judge Sullivan’s other-than-normal procedural choices in the current case.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. Sometimes bureaucracies make sausage, too.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  5. Wait… What’s this Durham report thingy?

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  6. As for your update, the ability of subordinates to resist torching what is left of their careers in the service of political needs is indicative of the expected result upcoming. Trump has been reduced to moving paper divisions around on the map in his bunker. I certainly hope the DoD has put in place the same controls that they did in the last month of Nixon’s administration.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  7. Much like Judge Sullivan’s other-than-normal procedural choices in the current case.

    The procedural abnormality of the Flynn proceedings did not start with Judge Sullivan, and it takes willful ignorance or dishonesty to sidestep the brazen behavior from DOJ and Flynn that he has been reacting to.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  8. I don’t recall the regulation, but I’m pretty sure Barr *can* ask for a report from Durham. But, it isn’t super clear if there are regulations preventing Barr from publicaly releasing that report (sans GJ info of course).

    I get the wheel of Justice is slooooow and I get Trump’s overall frustration because of the political implications.

    However, it looks like Durham (and Barr for that matter) is wanting to do this right. If there are going to be some indictments, then they’d better make sure all of their ducks are in a row. Which is the absolutely right thing to do, unlike the shenanigans perpetuated by Obama holdover folks.

    That lends credence to Barr’s past statement where he basically stated that to stop the “politicization of the DOJ” is to NOT politicize the DOJ.

    whembly (28d712)

  9. Federal prosecutors (and FBI agents) are to speak through indictments, or not speak at all.

    Yeah, back in the real world… they speak through carefully chosen leaks. OK, with that noted, back to fantasy world….

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  10. Much like Judge Sullivan’s other-than-normal procedural choices in the current case.

    I think you mean Judge Sullivan’s following the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in addressing the Justice Department’s unprecedented actions on behalf of a presidential crony.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  11. it takes willful ignorance or dishonesty to sidestep the brazen behavior from DOJ and Flynn

    As some view the political decision not to prosecute over negligent handling of TS documents, which actually is a serious felony in and of itself.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  12. RIP Whitey Ford (91)!

    Rip Murdock (82f8fa)

  13. I think you mean Judge Sullivan’s following the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in addressing the Justice Department’s unprecedented actions on behalf of a presidential crony.

    An action so normal that it has required review by an appellate court, and may yet again. There is now an entire body of argument, and budding precedent, to support Sullivan’s decisions but prior to that there wasn’t.

    So, other than normal. I admit you won’t agree, but let’s not dive too deep on this, please.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  14. Sop

    The etymology of sop takes us from bread to hellhounds to bribery. The journey starts over 900 years ago, when sop first referred to bread soaked in water, wine, or another liquid. Such soggy bread was considered a treat sure to tempt any appetite. Sops were considered so appealing that English translations of Virgil’s Aeneid tell of a sibyl using one soaked in honey to distract and drug Cerberus, the three-headed watchdog of the gates of the underworld, so Aeneas could get by him safely. By the 1600s, that mythological use of sop had given rise to the expression give a sop to Cerberus, meaning “to bribe” and to using sop to refer to a bribe or conciliatory gift.

    Barr gave Baby Drumfpy McDrumpfelschnitzel a sop of an investigation, and it pacified Baby for a while, but this is a baby who always wants more and will cry unless he gets it.

    nk (1d9030)

  15. An action so normal that it has required review by an appellate court

    The appellate court that was asked to review his actions explicitly disagreed with you that such review was “required.” To the contrary, they ruled the review inappropriate at this time.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  16. as solid as the memorial day story, as pointed out in the previous link by steven mcintyre, the whole case was based on vaporware,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  17. Trumps statements are vile. Translate them down to the small town level and it becomes apparent how bad they are. The mayor demanding that the City prosecutor indict his opponents and attacking the top cop for not accusing them of crimes is ridiculous.

    I look forward to an IG report on some of Barr’s less explicable decisions (such as the firing of the USA for SDNY). At this point the publicly known facts support a number of conflicting conclusions. Barr could be doing what whembly says, or he could trying to give Trump what he wants in a way that’s not obviously corrupt. I just don’t know for sure…but Trump has a history of running off everyone that won’t bow to his obviously corrupt schemes so I don’t think it’s likely the better option.

    Time123 (80b471)

  18. Patterico–

    You view what Flynn did an affront, particularly in view of your professional experience. I view what Clinton did beyond the pale, particularly in view of the rules that have been place upon me at times, which I have taken great pains not to violate since most people who do see the inside of a federal prison. What she did was a serious of serious felonies, and she skated.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. This is why James Comey was appropriately castigated for his criticism of Hillary Clinton, given that he was not recommending an indictment.

    I always thought that Comey’s comments were indicative of a man who strongly believed indictments should have been brought, and knew that political favoritism had won the day. So he lashed out and dared the AG to fire him.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/9/2020 @ 9:03 am

    I thought he expected Hillary to win and wanted to make sure it was clear to a HOR likely to be controlled by the GOP that he’d done everyone he could to indict her. The GOP at the time was doing a great job using oversight committees to run executive agencies through the meat grinder, and I mean that in a good way. But Comey didn’t want them targeting the FBI. Based on the poling data it looks like his announcement had an impact on the public. But that’s hard to prove conclusively.

    I think if his motivations were as you think he would have recommended a prosecution and dared the AG not to follow through.

    Time123 (80b471)

  20. Whether Hillary should have been indicted (she should have been) is a completely separate question from whether it was appropriate to comment on the investigation after the (corrupt) decision not to indict was made (it was not). This isn’t hard.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  21. Patterico–

    You view what Flynn did an affront, particularly in view of your professional experience. I view what Clinton did beyond the pale, particularly in view of the rules that have been place upon me at times, which I have taken great pains not to violate since most people who do see the inside of a federal prison. What she did was a serious of serious felonies, and she skated.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/9/2020 @ 9:22 am

    She’s good at Crime

    Time123 (80b471)

  22. Restated @17:
    You view what Flynn did (and what the DoJ did in dismissing) an affront, particularly in view of your professional experience

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  23. I feel the same way about people being unfair to Hillary Clinton with the nuanced application of legal procedures as I do Nazis getting punched in the street.

    It’s important for the rule of law that it not happen. The people that do it should be held accountable. But I can’t summon any sort of emotional response like ‘outrage’ or ‘sympathy’.

    Time123 (80b471)

  24. Trump has been reduced to moving paper divisions around on the map in his bunker.

    He did beat anorexia.

    nk (1d9030)

  25. That’s it. Durham’s job was to deliver indictments, not a report, and the only one he’s delivered is Clinesmith, which is not new because Horowitz was the guy who unveiled his criminal activity. This is going to end up being a bigger joke than Plamegate, because Durham won’t be able to get any high-profile scalps that Trump and his sycophants have been seeking.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  26. Trump has been reduced to moving paper divisions around on the map in his bunker.

    He did beat anorexia.

    nk (1d9030) — 10/9/2020 @ 9:29 am

    To death with a sack of KFC drumsticks.

    Time123 (80b471)

  27. I doubt Barr is turning on Trump at this point, especially after all Barr has been willing to do in the past. Maybe the report is not finished but it could also be that Barr knows the report will not show significant wrongdoing. It might even show there was and is a basis to believe Trump agents and Russia were conspiring. If so, delaying the report helps Trump.

    DRJ (aede82)

  28. they earned their ppe money, like deniro and mediamatters, you do remember this is politico 2.0

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  29. I would bet moderate sums of money that DRJ is right.

    Time123 (80b471)

  30. @27/29 – considering the games Barr was willing to play with the Mueller report, the St. John’s photo op, etc., I have absolutely no doubt his silence here is a product of having absolutely nothing to work with.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  31. I agree with DRJ. All Trump wants is a show. Until the release date, we’ll be treated with clips of the production on location.

    nk (1d9030)

  32. If my speculation is right, Time123, it is also possible Durham was going to release the report and Barr stopped it. If so, we may never see that version of the report if Trump is re-elected.

    DRJ (aede82)

  33. It might even show there was and is a basis to believe Trump agents and Russia were conspiring.

    Ah yes. this is one of those “good” conspiracy theories — the kind we latch on to when we’re not lampooning the “bad” conspiracy theories that nut jobs latch on to.

    Someone should launch a two-year probe to get to the bottom of this.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  34. DRJ at 27: that was my thought, too — if it’s being delayed until past the election, it clearly is at the very least *neutral*, which is harmful because it pops the narrative bubble he and his people are trying to sell.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  35. i’m reminded of absence of malice, I saw it this weekend again, there is a weasel like clinesmith, who doesn’t have any evidence that gallagher dissapeared a union activist,
    but he leaves the file out, for eager reporter carter, his boss waddell does’t know what’s going on, gallagher is bewildered, he tries to persuade waddell to find out, like with raymond donovan, about four years later ‘where do I go to get my reputation back’ stephen hatfill could have said the same thing 20 years later, the 40,000 employees of arthur anderson, were found not guilty, but the company was in tatters carved up by hsbc, and accenture, the former is the apple of the eye of judge gleeson, just shenanigans laundering billions of mob and aq money,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  36. It might even further show there was and is a basis to believe that Trump agents and Russia were conspiring.

    nk (1d9030)

  37. Conspiracy theories typically don’t have much evidence. This does. From my link, beer ‘n pretzels:

    The chairman of an American presidential campaign maintaining close, surreptitious contact with a Russian spy linked to the Kremlin’s brazen attack on the 2016 election bears repeating – and should raise no shortage of alarm bells. More importantly, it demolishes Trump’s increasingly frantic claims of a Russia “hoax.”

    Thanks to Senate Republicans, we also know that “on numerous occasions” Manafort and his deputy passed sensitive Trump campaign information directly to a Russian spy.

    It is difficult to overstate the importance of the polling and strategy data that Trump’s top campaign advisers handed to Russian intelligence.

    Brad Parscale, who ran the Trump campaign’s data operation in 2016 (and served for a time as Trump’s 2020 campaign manager), testified that a whopping “98 percent” of Trump campaign resources were allocated based on the polling information that Manafort passed to a Russian spy. Indeed, the data was so critical that Parscale kept it at his fingertips to quickly tell Trump where to conduct his next rally.

    Manafort, in short, handed the crown jewels of Trump’s game-changing data operation directly to Russian intelligence.

    Worse yet, Manafort explained to his Russian confidant exactly how the Trump campaign could win the 2016 election by targeting blue-collar voters in select Democratic-leaning states and counties. Between this information and the ultra-sensitive polling data Manafort gave to his Russian handler, Russia’s spymasters had all they needed to interfere in the election to Trump’s advantage. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the information that Manafort passed to a Russian intelligence was used by operatives in Moscow to micro-target vulnerable voters in key states with millions of dollars in pro-Trump, anti-Hillary ads and messaging.

    As usual, there is more at the link. Consider reading it.

    DRJ (aede82)

  38. I also wonder if any of this was related to Parscale’s recent resignation and breakdown.

    DRJ (aede82)

  39. His former business partner, who hired christopher adam waldman and jonathan winer, isikoffs confirmation witness, its all timey wimey.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  40. @12. Sad news– but 91 is a good run. Met Whitey at a NYC eatery many years ago. Ball signed, etc. A very jovial fella and incredibly polite to ball fans who recognized him. Last of an era of Yankee greats. He’ll be missed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. If Durham had found evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, it would have been leaked by now. Instead, the only leaks surround a FBI agent lying on a FISA application and now, that Durham is looking at the fake Trump-Alfa Bank story that Hillary peddled.

    Hoi Polloi (acf0e3)

  42. It all harkens back to the scope memo Barr gave Durham. It was very limiting, by Barr’s own admission, to the predicate for the original investigation. From many reports, Durham has the goods on this aspect of Russiagate. What is NOT clear is if conduct rose to criminal levels. DoJ policies were most certainly obliterated.

    Along the way, Durham learned of nefarious actions by the usual suspects and expanded his probe. Which led to further discoveries. He was slow-rolled by entrenched interests, even within the DoJ (check out the COO of the DoJ). Sen. Warner of the Senate Intel Committee has been a particular fly in the ointment of justice advancing in this case. The SSCI has been lousy/infested with rats. Good luck proving criminality with Congressional immunity.

    Barr was granted full authorization to release all related documentation last year. Why is it Durham did not look at Agent Barnett’s written objections to the way things were being handled on high? Barr had full access to those memos and either had no curiosity, or he sat on them.

    To me, we have conflicting goods. The first being a thorough investigation which follows established and accepted procedure. Not a small thing and Pat has written extensively on this. The second being justice delayed is justice denied. A virtual coup, abetted by certain factions in Congress, attempted to take down an innocent president. Not one person in a supervisory role has been formally named, let alone indicted. FOUR YEARS after the fact.

    The persons of interest have successfully run out the clock. Barr’s deliberate obfuscation has won out. Let’s just see if Durham is allowed to finish, as he sees fit, the entire scope of his investigation.

    Ed from SFV (f64387)

  43. Trump was asked on his interview on Rush Limbaugh show (I’m seeing tweets about this)… and, he didn’t KNOW that Barr made that statement.

    Sounds like Axios is just guessing because there’s only 25 days until the election. They could be guessing right…though.

    whembly (c30c83)

  44. Dag rosen, seems to be stalling, odd just like the guy in ‘malice’

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  45. @43 So this post’s update on that NYTime article about Trump pressuring Barr may be vaporware as well.

    whembly (c30c83)

  46. #37 — I was just compiling a little summary of that information from the Senate report. I couple of other things about Manafot:

    But we do know that he used four different encrypted messaging applications, “burner” phones, coded signals and a surreptitious method of passing messages – all hallmarks of espionage tradecraft – to communicate with a Russian spy at the height of the 2016 campaign.

    We also know that Manafort’s Russian handler would discuss some topics only in person and repeatedly flew to the United States just to meet with Manafort. After their meetings, they used “separate routes to avoid being seen together.”

    Read it. And follow the links to the Senate report.

    There must be a word for what Trump’s campaign manager and the Russian spy were doing in those meetings and conversations. Maybe it’s “hoax”? Or something else?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  47. What was greg craig doing fixing court cases in ukraine, why did he skate why were podesta and weber investigates for what manafort paid them to do.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  48. BREAKING NEWS: President Trump insists that for the next debate to happen, Steve Scully must be replaced by Vin Scully.

    qdpsteve (8d496a)

  49. Maybe it’s “hoax”? Or something else?

    I think it’s QAnon.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  50. The committees ranking member who played tillis like a violin had a back channel to steele shared by that same oligarch.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  51. I think it’s QAnon.

    So the Senate Republicans signed off on conspiracy-theory hoax, and called it a Senate report?

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  52. I told you who runs the committee, who bought crowdstrike and fusion lock stock amd barrel.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  53. And the pelosis invested a million in crowdstrike.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  54. And the pelosis invested a million in crowdstrike.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:07 am

    So? They are the good guys.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  55. They were party to the greatest fraud since the zinoviev letter.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  56. No they were the victim of collusion, quite deliberately.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  57. What are the rules of journalism who what when where how and why, which does this piece answer none

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  58. We’ve already been there. Trump’s Regeneron therapy did not *contain* human + embryonic + stem cells. It was *tested* on human embryonic (not necessarily stem) cells. Ride that orange pony, let the spinning wheel spin. A baby was still aborted.

    nk (1d9030)

  59. You can indict before an election, ask lawrence walsh about that, he didnt abide by the 60 day rule

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  60. What are the rules of journalism who what when where how and why, which does this piece answer none

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:18 am

    Ah yes, Narciso’s famous commitment to absolute clarity when discussing the issues and their relevance. (just kidding, love ya man)

    Dustin (4237e0)

  61. And the pelosis invested a million in crowdstrike.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:07 am

    Except they bought the giant share of 0.003125% of CrowdStrike. $1M out of a market cap of almost $32B.

    It’s almost like Paul Pelosi is a Silicon Valley VC and investor.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  62. Steve Scully must be replaced by Vin Scully.

    Vin would do a better job, as always. And he’d probably related some fairly unknown history about the candidates that would delight viewers, if not the candidates.

    Other than the Navy, he has only had that one job broadcasting Dodger games (67 years, ending at age 88). So, he’s good at it.

    Admittedly he doesn’t care for those who kneel during the anthem, but I suspect many WWII era men have the same attitude.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. This WaPo opinion piece is probably pay-walled, but notices something very disconcerting:

    On Hannity’s show, Trump reveals his corrupt, panicky endgame

    Trump increasingly appears unwilling to discourage the potential for political violence on his behalf — even when events are screaming at him to do so. And it’s reasonable to fear he may actively stoke outbreaks in the run-up to the election or in its aftermath.

    Trump told us where this is all going on Thursday night from the safe confines of his favorite fact-free propaganda zone. He told Sean Hannity that he was pleased with Vice President Pence’s comments at the Wednesday debate on whether he’d assist a peaceful transfer of power.

    “Mike Pence’s best answer was that answer last night,” Trump said.

    Let’s review that “answer.” Moderator Susan Page pointed out that Trump has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election, then asked Pence what he would do in that situation.

    Pence didn’t answer the question, refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer himself. He then aired the false claim that the Obama-Biden administration “spied” on the Trump campaign in 2016, citing new “documents” supposedly showing Hillary Clinton’s campaign concocted the claim of Russian interference.

    For a good unraveling of this latest nonsense, see Glenn Kessler’s new piece. But what’s important here is the connection between this latest turn in the bogus “Obamagate” scandal and the refusal to commit to a peaceful transition.

    This link is being increasingly drawn of late. Indeed, Trump himself drew it on Hannity. Just before hailing Pence’s answer on the transition question, Trump railed that the previous administration had been caught “spying on our campaign,” which he called an act of “treason.”

    In short, that invented scandal is morphing into the justification for refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer as the election nears. The Trump campaign also just echoed this in a fundraising email highlighted by reporter Kyle Cheney, which shrieks that due to that fake scandal, “Biden shouldn’t be allowed to run.”

    It’s a sign of how far we’ve fallen that the president of the United States can accuse his predecessor of “treason” based on pure fictions, and his campaign can suggest that his challenger’s candidacy is illegitimate, only to see it largely ignored as typical conduct on his part.

    The article goes on to note Trump’s incitement of violence in Michigan and public pressure on the Justice Dept. to arrest his political opponents for imaginary crimes.

    How anyone who claims to love our country could continue to support this lunatic is beyond me.

    Dave (1bb933)

  64. What are the rules of journalism

    Let’s ask the Sundance Kid.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  65. John O. Brennan
    @JohnBrennan
    ·
    Imagine prospects for world peace, prosperity, & security if Joe Biden were President of the United States & Alexei Navalny the President of Russia. We’ll soon be halfway there.

    “Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace
    You, you may say I’m a dreamer
    But I’m not the only one”
    __ _

    Joe Gabriel Simonson
    @SaysSimonson

    remains surreal this guy ran the CIA
    __ _

    Corbin Malone
    @corbinmalone7
    ·
    Pretty fascinating people are still led to believe there was no bias…..

    __ _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  66. @56

    And the pelosis invested a million in crowdstrike.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:07 am

    So? They are the good guys.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:09 am

    Dustin… Crowdstrike is the DNC party “fixer”.

    whembly (b57cfe)

  67. WaPo opinion piece

    So anti-Trump they had to call it opinion. The Washington Post is not a reliable reporter on things Trump. The WH Press Room may be more reliable. It’s hard to call.

    There is a raft of difference between “opposing a peaceful transfer of power” and “asisiting” with one. Read the news stories about the intentional destruction that Clinton’s people left in their WH offices.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  68. Scully invoking the Joy Reid defense is comedy gold.
    _

    harkin (7fb4c9)

  69. Ah yes, Narciso’s famous commitment to absolute clarity when discussing the issues and their relevance.

    A comment that could cover many here, actually.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. Or the transition integrity project or thousand currents or what apelbaum turned up

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  71. Scully invoking the Joy Reid defense is comedy gold.

    I am so glad the “rehab” defense is out of date.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  72. Dustin… Crowdstrike is the DNC party “fixer”.

    whembly (b57cfe) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:31 am

    That is a major aspect of the collusion. Flooding the world with this idea that Russia’s foes are all part of a sinister conspiracy.

    Did you know the National Republican Congressional Committee has also used Crowdstrike? They are a very effective threat intel firm. Have you ever actually been educated on this stuff, outside partisan blogs and Qanon and maybe a podcast selling testosterone supplements?

    Russia saw Crowdstrike as a real threat because to the bad guys, Crowdstrike is a real threat.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  73. @68, that’s an interesting characterization for a company that has the RNC cyber security contract. Anything to back it up? Any evidence their work is flawed in some meaningful way?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  74. Imagine prospects for world peace, prosperity, & security if we elect a communist. — John Brennan, circa 1980.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  75. It’s almost like Paul Pelosi is a Silicon Valley VC and investor.

    Since saying “it’s almost like Trump is a real estate developer and resort magnate” doesn’t cut it with some, I’d have to think that over a bit.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  76. I might be oblique because there is so much damn mung to wade through. So russia is bad except when podesta weber davis chertoff and craig lobby for it, then its ok jonathan winer too as well as adam waldman. Assuange is now bad but when he filled the rows of pulitzers it was ok

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  77. “Hey, Assange, that was MY ox that got gored this time!”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  78. . So russia is bad

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:39 am

    Yessssssssssssss

    Dustin (4237e0)

  79. So anti-Trump they had to call it opinion.

    It was an opinion piece, by one of their regular opinion columnists, appearing in their Opinion section.

    Are you so well-programmed that you just include boilerplate whining about media bias out of habit?

    The Washington Post is not a reliable reporter on things Trump. The WH Press Room may be more reliable.

    Oddly, you didn’t note any errors of fact in what I quoted.

    Read the news stories about the intentional destruction that Clinton’s people left in their WH offices.

    Whataboutism noted.

    Kevin, nobody is worried about Trump ordering vandalization of keyboards…

    Dave (1bb933)

  80. Trump was first told about this during his two hour interview on the Rush Limbaugh show. He wasn’t ready to accept that report as true, but said that woulld be the frst call he makes when it finishes.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  81. @74

    Dustin… Crowdstrike is the DNC party “fixer”.

    whembly (b57cfe) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:31 am

    That is a major aspect of the collusion. Flooding the world with this idea that Russia’s foes are all part of a sinister conspiracy.

    Did you know the National Republican Congressional Committee has also used Crowdstrike? They are a very effective threat intel firm. Have you ever actually been educated on this stuff, outside partisan blogs and Qanon and maybe a podcast selling testosterone supplements?

    Russia saw Crowdstrike as a real threat because to the bad guys, Crowdstrike is a real threat.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:35 am

    I’m not saying they’re partisan (although it’s debatable)… only that’s what they *do*.

    The thing that boggles my mind is that Crowdstrike performed the forensic on behalf of the DNC during the email leaks.

    They REFUSED, under direction from DNC, to give the source materials for the FBI to conduct their own investigation of the leaks. The FBI only recieved a REPORT of Crowdstrikes own investigative reports.

    Here’s the kicker, Crowdstrike is on Congressional Record admitting that they never saw explicit evidence of the leak (ie, the phishing scam). They only saw circumstantial evidence of POSSIBLE exfiltration.

    If you were the DNC, wouldn’t you want the FBI to investigate the source materials to be ASSURED wtf happend?

    Furthermore, the DOJ wouldn’t have any chance in court if they had to rely on Crowdstrike’s report.

    whembly (b57cfe)

  82. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, they all have incredible capabilities in hacking and disinformation. They cause a lot of trouble.

    What is sometimes overlooked is that the USA has a far more advanced capability. Stuxnet, Duqu, it’s fascinating. And like everything else, stopping Iran from having nukes, with ingenious hacking of airgapped machinery, that comes with a price. Iran and other bad guys piece together what happened and copy it.

    As a result, any company today is vulnerable to Russia or China or Iran or North Korea destroying it. And these efforts happen all the time.

    Crowdstrike is a great investment, much like AXON (bodycams) was a year ago, as a cynical appraisal of what the world will need.

    Russia is way ahead of the game in one area beyond sql overflows and socially engineered logins. They muddy the waters about how sinister it is to be the company that identifies and stops these attacks. They do it with a bunch of useful… people who love Trump.

    It is profound the damage Trump’s election has done. But both political parties have a terrible history, and there’s always a push to move forward and forgive the past. This Durham investigation, Mueller’s investigation, it all doesn’t go far enough. If Biden doesn’t pursue this ruthlessly, he will leave the free world even weaker.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  83. I don’t need to be told about russians, but it was the company who believed the line from raul’s future wife that the castro brothers were totes fine, consequently they rooted for him against batista, then fidel killed their chief police liason, that’s the only thing, that made them wake up, not the firing squads because the subjects were obviously guilty,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  84. I don’t need to be told about russians

    The ones who colluded with Trump to win the election, or the ones Putin throws out windows when they say the truth?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  85. Re: Comey. Attoney General Loretta Lynch haad said she follow the recommendation of the FBI as to whether or not to indict Hillary. Nw=ow FBI Directors do not normally make such recommendations.

    Comey probably cae to te conclusion he was told to. Probably via Hillary’s lawyers.

    Hillary did not want this hanging over her head unless she was going to be indicted in which case she would string the FBI along but in the end, not do an interview (she knew she would not be indicted once it got too close to an election and she also knew an interview with her, or a refusal to do a intrview was needed for the next step.

    Bill Clinton arranged atest. He “accidentally” encountered Lorreta Lynch and saw she did not go out of her way to avoid him. It had to be unplanned for her but it also had to avoidable. That she did not avoid him meant that she had not ben warned not to see him, which in turn meant he was not under investigation, which in turn meant there was no RICO case in the works against Hilary. That meant an intervew was safe.

    Technically Comey wasn’t making any decision at all – prosecutors were. But they attempted to throw the responsibility to Comey, who was supposed to be a non partisan figure.

    To make himself look as on partisan as possible, Comey came up with violations of law but said they would never be prosecuted.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  86. very convenient sammy, that hillary who had violated a boatload of statutes, it’s totes cool,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  87. @78 I think you are oblique because when you are clear it’s easy to tell that your facts are bad and your political philosophy is inconsistent with the broad application of American philiosophical, political, and economic ideals.

    @83 Does no one understand how hiring a company to do a thing works? They are a company that contracts to do jobs for clients. They do the work they are contracted for. They work for Democratic clients and Republican clients. They were hired to perform the forensic by the DNC, just like they were hired to do other things by other people. That’s their job. If I hire an arborist to come trim my trees on my property, but my neighbor doesn’t like my instructions, comes over to tell the arborist to do it differently and the arborist refuses, that doesn’t mean they are partisan on my behalf, it means they are fulfilling their contract with me.

    @86 I hate to be callus here, but everyone involved in that US side of the Castro/Cuba change-over is dead or very very retired.

    Nic (896fdf)

  88. whembly (b57cfe) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:53 am

    If you were the DNC, wouldn’t you want the FBI to investigate the source materials

    No, because they had political secrets to keep. Including unethical things that people would be dying to tell.

    to be ASSURED wtf happend?

    They had confidence in Crowdstrike. They also didn’t want to announce anything until they had upgraded their security.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  89. how did they collude, they made hillary not campaign in wisconsin and michigan, so the code inside the servers was not particularly russian or unique to the fsb, carter page was an agency asset, not a soviet one, yadda yadda,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  90. Thanks to Senate Republicans, we also know that “on numerous occasions” Manafort and his deputy passed sensitive Trump campaign information directly to a Russian spy.

    Polls. and without telling anybody else. Manafort was stringing the Russians along. He had no intention of taking ajob in a future Trump Administration, because it would not pay him enough, and preclude lobbying. He also dd not want to become a Russian spy.

    It could be considered that he gave those polls so that Putin would think Trump had a good chance.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  91. An action so normal that it has required review by an appellate court, and may yet again.

    You’re taking Sidney Powell’s dopey writ petition, resoundingly rejected by the full D.C. Circuit, as evidence that Judge Sullivan’s actions were not normal?

    OK.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  92. There is now an entire body of argument, and budding precedent, to support Sullivan’s decisions but prior to that there wasn’t.

    There’s Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 48, subdivision (a), which requires leave of court.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  93. the only difference between cuba and eastern europe tibet and indonesia, was it happened on out front steps,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  94. your mama’s so oblique when she sits around the house we don’t know which house or whose mom

    Dustin (4237e0)

  95. looking at it a different way

    https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2020/10/barr-durham-focused-on-winning.html

    if they can do this to a three star general they can do it to anyone,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  96. Trump can;t even get his election argument out straight.

    It’s that solicited absentee ballots are OK, because no one know if a duplicate registration would get caught – and they might catch an attempt when they look at the signature but that a state sending out unsolicited absentee ballots is an invitation to fraud.

    So far so good, except that on;y about one in ten people who receive ballots for somebody else or for themselves at a duplicate address would attempt to vote them. Even if absentee ballots split 70-30 for Biden, meaning they add a net 40% of their total to Biden, it doesn’t add a great deal. 10%wrong;y voting is 4% and if 25% of people received a spare ballot it would be great deal – that 1%. Biden gets 62% in California isetead of 61%

    But the Democrats lose more votes through people spoiling their absentee ballots. Say 10% do and they are 40$ f votes cas, that 4% and the net gain to Biden is 40% of that – Biden loses 1.6%

    Anyway, after making a legitimate distinction between solicited and unsolicited ballots, Trump then tries to talk about undelivered mail etc, implying there’s a big conspiracy and says things like that in California they vote three times. The transcript will be out soon.

    This kind of spoils it for when Trump says something that is right albeit controversial, or something nearly accurate. He’s right about there being a cure for Covid.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  97. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/us/politics/democrats-in-person-voting.html

    For some Democratic officials, the push on mail voting is a way to increase their success in the margins, where close states are likely to be decided. Ben Bright, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Washington County, Pa., said he encouraged “low-propensity voters” — those who don’t regularly cast a ballot — to vote by mail. But for “super-voters,” or those who participate in every election, he advised voting in person. That way they will avoid any mistakes that can cause an absentee ballot to be rejected.

    “Our thought has always been that if we get 1,000 Democrats to vote by mail that wouldn’t have voted otherwise, and we lose 10 percent due to mistakes, we still gained 900 votes,” Mr. Bright said. “But if 1,000 super-voters decide to vote by mail, and 10 percent of their votes are lost due to mistakes, then we’ve lost 100 votes we otherwise should have had.”

    Trump if was cynical, and he is, isn’t he, except he’s somewhat incompetent, should be encouraging Democratic voters, especially those with low education, to vote by mail.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  98. @96 Who taught you history? You should go find them and spit on the ground at their feet.

    Eastern Europe was invaded by the Soviets as the Soviets pushed out the Nazis and then the Soviets never went home. Tibet was invaded by China.

    Cuba and Indonesia were not invaded. What they had were basically post-colonial reactionary movements and strong men. Castro having been more successful at maintaining power than the various Indonesian military dictators.

    Nic (896fdf)

  99. do you want me listen the support operations in albania, hungary poland, ukraine, et al, the khamba rebels operating from india, until galbraith pere said nee,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  100. ’m not saying they’re partisan (although it’s debatable)… only that’s what they *do*.

    The thing that boggles my mind is that Crowdstrike performed the forensic on behalf of the DNC during the email leaks.

    Per sworn testimony this is not unusual.

    They REFUSED, under direction from DNC, to give the source materials for the FBI to conduct their own investigation of the leaks. The FBI only recieved a REPORT of Crowdstrikes own investigative reports.

    Per sworn testimony this did not impede their ability to determine what happened.

    Here’s the kicker, Crowdstrike is on Congressional Record admitting that they never saw explicit evidence of the leak (ie, the phishing scam). They only saw circumstantial evidence of POSSIBLE exfiltration.

    This is not an accurate characterization. They saw everything but the data leave and where it went. From this, in their same sworn testimony, they were able to conclude what happened.

    Time123 (b0628d)

  101. Kevin, nobody is worried about Trump ordering vandalization of keyboards…

    I got an idea … why don’t we wait for the event, rather than arguing about what might happen if. There are enough problems in the world without inventing them.

    Were Trump to lose the election by anything that doesn’t actually require further study (e.g. Florida 2000), and refused to concede or attempted a self-coup, the reaction among all but a few hotheads would be immediate and not to his liking. He might even get impeached and convicted in an hour.

    OTOH, I see no reason that a close election would be accepted by the Democrats without a fight either. And if states tried to thwart the will of their voters, I see the Supreme Court slapping that down fast — states surrendered the right to choose electors directly and they cannot get that back.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  102. There’s Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 48, subdivision (a), which requires leave of court.

    And the degree to which that is not a magisterial act is now being litigated.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  103. @64.Vin Scully? LOL! Oh yeah, like he’s not biased; watch this: there’s enoUgh syrup on these pancaked waffles to give you diabetes:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYeNuISN4Dc

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  104. >He might even get impeached and convicted in an hour.

    Since the behavior of the Republicans in the legislature has been complete and utter support up until now, why do you believe this? McConnell and McCarthy have been unwilling to draw a single line in the sand anywhere, what reason is there to believe they would do so now, instead of simply repeating Trump’s lies and paranoid delusions as though they were true?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  105. And, again, Patterico, I was discussing the Comey-Clinton situation — which you brought up and asserted that Comey was wrong to react to being ordered to drop it. A case that is based on something that is to me as perjury in open court is to you.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  106. Vin Scully? LOL! Oh yeah, like he’s not biased

    Because he liked Reagan? Clearly Reagan is your Troll Move.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  107. Mr. Trump has often argued that his political antagonists should be prosecuted, but in this case, he went further by indicating that he had directly pressured Mr. Barr to indict without waiting for more evidence. “He’s got all the information he needs,” the president said. “They want to get more, more, more, they keep getting more. I said, ‘You don’t need any more.’”

    Episode #832 of Things That Would Set Trump Apologists’ Hair on Fire if a Democrat Did Them. If you doubt that, there’s a good chance you have Anti-Anti-TDS. Sadly there’s little hope for a cure until the afflicted can be freed of the crippling delusion that all their symptoms are easily explained by everyone else’s TDS.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  108. why do you believe this?

    Because some things ARE beyond the pale. And at some point they will be happy to be rid of him. Do you really think they *liked* the man? They were just terrified of what his supporters could do. But as long as Trump does something that shocks even them, that’s no longer an issue.

    Republicans would have convicted Nixon after the Smoking Gun tapes were released. But not before.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  109. Pontoon plane billy bob and his can of bull schiff durham couldn’t convict a fuxing jay walker. Impeach Rube ridge Barr and his band of crooked doj pos

    mg (8cbc69)

  110. @102 Support operations of an invading army are not the same as internal political strife and take over. Albania and Hungary might be debatable as to which model they are closer too, but I would still have to go with more of the invasion model fitting there, Hungary more closely than Albania. Poland and Ukraine definitely fall under the invasion model, as does the Tibetan Khamba Rebellion of 1959. All of these are far different than the situations in either Cuba or Indonesia.

    Nic (896fdf)

  111. 107. aphrael (4c4719) — 10/9/2020 @ 1:40 pm

    Since the behavior of the Republicans in the legislature has been complete and utter support up until now,

    Mitch McConnell has not visited the White House for two months (since August 6) because he did not have confidence in the White House procedures for preventing the spread of Covid.

    Both McConnell and McCarthy instantly rejected Trump]s proposal to postpone the date of the election, with McConnell saying we had an election during the Civil War etc and it will take pace as scheduled (although Marco Rubio introduced a bill to postpone the casting of the votes by the Electors till January 2)

    You can’t move the January 3 or the January 20 date.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  112. 110. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/9/2020 @ 1:48 pm

    Do you really think they *liked* the man?

    I think Mich McConnell regarded the election of Donald Trump as something like what would hav happened if Ross Perot had won in 19992, Really an independent, but much closer to the Republicans and he’d want to keep it that way.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  113. Really an independent, but much closer to the Republicans and he’d want to keep it that way.

    But far from optimum. Going into 2016, the GOP had both houses of Congress, the majority of state governors and legislatures, and all this had been on the increase. What they needed was a GOP president who could work with Congress on a long list on things that had been pent up for a decade or more. Starting with entitlement reform, which included replacing Obamacare.

    Ten years in the making, they finally had it lined up, and then Trump came in and kicked the game-table over to do — well it’s hard to say except he never did it. Four years of ranting. OK., judges. I have to admit judges. And those from a list that the GOP provided.

    But the aftermath of this is going to be loss of the WH, loss of Congress, loss of the majorities in the states, and a rear guard action against losses to come. Donald Trump is going to become a non-person in the GOP, much as McGovern did after ’72, and Carter after ’80.

    Maybe he’ll go work at Habitat for Humanity.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  114. Kevin, nobody is worried about Trump ordering vandalization of keyboards…

    With that said, I hope the GAO has a detailed inventory of everything of value in the WH, because wholesale theft seems like a very real possibility.

    Dave (1bb933)

  115. @Pat or any of the mods: I just noticed my comment #110 is in moderation. I’m guessing it’s a glitch, but if I crossed some line please tell me what it is and I’ll stop. Thks.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  116. O.M.G.

    Biden speechifying in Las Vegas. Aviators on w/a mask– a dead ringer for the wanted sketch of th Unibomber.

    And the mask keeps falling down off his snout: the idiot has it on upside down.

    … and Putin smiled

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  117. @109. No, trolling Steve Scully is yours. For God’s sake – a CSPAN nebbish.

    Next you’ll attack Brian Lamb–who BTW- has earned and rightly deserves the Medal Of Freedom much moe than El RushBo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. @ 115:

    Donald Trump is going to become a non-person in the GOP, much as McGovern did after ’72, and Carter after ’80.

    The Republicans should be so lucky.

    It is increasingly looking like Biden will win handily. (Admittedly, I say that with some caution, as I was positive that Hillary was going to win four years ago, and remained that way right up we were well into the actual counting.) But even if Biden were to win a staggering victory, on the order of 1972, 1980, or 1984, Trump won’t go away. He will remain a considerably important voice in US politics, because a sizable percentage of Republicans will believe pretty much anything he says.

    The best case scenario for this is: that Trump seeks to capitalize on his presidency, possibly by opening up his own news network; that he spends the rest of his life ranting about how he was robbed of the 2020 election, and how his presidency was sabotaged from without and within, to an audience both sizable and loyal; and that he remains an important endorsement for anyone seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency, and other high political offices, for at least a decade.

    The worst case scenario for this is the permanent fracturing of the Republican Party, and the establishment of two smaller parties on the conservative end of the spectrum, neither of which will have the votes to defeat the Democrats until they have held power long enough to change our country into something unrecognizable. That situation would probably persist until the majority in each new party stopped blaming the other new party for being the stubborn jerks that were splitting their vote and handing power to the Democrats. Fortunately, that probably won’t take more than twenty years or so.

    Demosthenes (5f62f9)

  119. Anyway, after making a legitimate distinction between solicited and unsolicited ballots, Trump then tries to talk about undelivered mail etc, implying there’s a big conspiracy and says things like that in California they vote three times. The transcript will be out soon

    Here it is:

    https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/10/09/mega-maga-the-largest-radio-rally-in-history

    …THE PRESIDENT: They don’t want to talk to me about it. So many things like sanctuary cities, you know, the people in California hate sanctuary cities. I don’t know where it gets its political stamina, the people in California, they see me all the time — I think we’ll do well in California. In theory you don’t win California because everybody likes to vote three times if you want to know the truth.

    RUSH: We’re gonna get into that later in the program.

    THE PRESIDENT: The whole thing is crazy, but the people want to vote, they vote numerous times, numerous times, and it’s disgraceful. But the people in California, they don’t like sanctuary cities….

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  120. Demosthenes–

    Historically, defeated candidates no longer have any sway in the party. When McGovern lost, he have had had his adherents but they were ineffective at tilting the party. It went towards the center with Carter, and more so with Clinton. Currently that wing supports Bernie and AOC. Bernie is done now and we’ll see about AOC, but that whole wing of the Democrat Party has been moribund for decades.

    Goldwater never came back, but Reagan did. A new and improved version. I can see some of Trump
    s policies return in a new candidate, but hopefully not Trump’s behavior, which is what destroyed him.

    The most terrible split in party politics in the US was Andy Jackson splitting the Democrats. FIrst there was the Whigs — anti-Jackson Dems plus a grab bag of others. That failed after electing two presidents, both who died in their first year. Out of that came the Republicans. Between Jackson and the Civil War only the Democrat Polk got anything done; changing the country unrecognizably would have to wait for Lincoln and Grant.

    The Southern Dem split didn’t last long at all. Trump’s few True Believers will be primaried out in short order. He LOST.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  121. I think Trump will try to keep himself front and center until he finally heads off to that Great Tax Shelter in the Sky (or prison).

    He will draw all the wrong lessons from his crushing defeat, and his superfans will be primed for further grievance conditioning.

    As long as he has followers, some politicians (e.g. Cotton, Hawley) and aspiring politicians (Uday, Qusay, Nepotism Barbie) will court him.

    Even those who don’t have the stomach to court him will still be reluctant to antagonize his fanatical worshippers by criticism.

    Dave (1bb933)

  122. Pompeo answers his master’s command:

    Pompeo says he will release Clinton emails following Trump criticism

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday announced he would release more of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails — an openly political move on behalf of President Donald Trump ahead of the November election and a year after a State Department investigation concluded there was no “persuasive evidence” of widespread mishandling of classified information by Clinton or her aides.

    […]

    In an interview with Fox News Friday, Pompeo said, “We’ve got the emails, we’re getting them out.” It is unclear if he was referencing the deleted emails.

    Asked if they would be released before the election, he said, “I certainly think there’ll be more to see before the election.”

    “We’re going to get all this information out so the American people can see it. You’ll remember there was classified information on a private server, should have never been there, Hillary Clinton should never have done that, that was unacceptable behavior,” Pompeo said.

    So they’re going to prove how irresponsible and unacceptable it was for Clinton to keep this “classified information” on a private server … by releasing it publicly?

    As a pre-election political stunt?

    LOL!

    Bravo, gentlemen!

    Dave (1bb933)

  123. So I watched these old videos about Biden from the 80s, Sam Donaldson was there… DCSCA would have liked it. The guy was a shameless and incompetent liar.

    But Trump’s running against Hillary.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  124. They REFUSED, under direction from DNC, to give the source materials for the FBI to conduct their own investigation of the leaks. The FBI only recieved a REPORT of Crowdstrikes own investigative reports.

    The FBI received complete copies of forensic images made by CrowdStrike. Under oath, Comey testified under oath that that was sufficient for his IT people to conduct their investigation. It was also sufficient for Mueller to issue a dozen indictments against Russian intelligence agents.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  125. I see your comment 110, lurker. It was probably moderated because it has T-D-S.

    DRJ (aede82)

  126. The FBI received complete copies of forensic images made by CrowdStrike. Under oath, Comey testified under oath that that was sufficient for his IT people to conduct their investigation. It was also sufficient for Mueller to issue a dozen indictments against Russian intelligence agents.
    Paul Montagu (77c694) — 10/9/2020 @ 4:09 pm

    For intel purposes, maybe. Wouldn’t have done well in court though. Chain of evidence and all that.

    Hoi Polloi (acf0e3)

  127. Trump and Co. play their supporters for absolute idiots who will faithfully parrot sheer nonsense.

    Access to the physical hardware would only be relevant if the crime involved physically tampering with the hardware. But it didn’t.

    The crime involved illegal access to, and tampering with, data on the storage media.

    As the WaPo article Paul linked points out, there were multiple “servers” because we are talking about modern, cloud-based distributed computing solution, not an 80’s style mainframe that has a whole room to itself. Likewise, the data was undoubtedly stored in multiple places, because that’s how modern enterprise computing systems work.

    They are setup to make the specific hardware setup involved invisible to the end user; this allows the system to be transparently moved between different pieces of hardware, or even different data centers in different cities, (for maintenance, redundancy, scaling the computing or storage resources up or down to meet demand) without the users noticing any change at all.

    Dave (1bb933)

  128. With business records, it is probably enough if a DNC records custodian/clerk could have authenticated the data on which the report was based.

    DRJ (aede82)

  129. That comment was for Hoi Polloi.

    DRJ (aede82)

  130. Wouldn’t have done well in court though. Chain of evidence and all that.

    Nonsense.

    The evidence was the data, not the hardware.

    Dave (1bb933)

  131. Wouldn’t have done well in court though. Chain of evidence and all that.

    You don’t know that, Hoi. What we do know is that Mueller had sufficient evidence to indict Russians and Russian firms. Unfortunately, there is no extradition treaty with Russia so all you have is speculation.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  132. Dustin, have you seen Biden’s 1993 speech where he vigorously defends the forthcoming 1994 Crime Bill. Most cities in 2020 would gladly take that version of Biden.

    urbanleftbehind (587a57)

  133. Wow, ULB. Interesting video!

    Dustin (4237e0)

  134. Except concords atty proved it was bunkum, he was a veteran of the new york and palm beach us attys office

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  135. Breaking news: the second debate has been cancelled.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/politics/second-presidential-debate-canceled/index.html

    So predictable. This wasn’t even going to be a debate, in the formal sense, but a town hall. That’s why the commission wanted to make it virtual, with both candidates taking questions from voters in separate locations to avoid contagion. Trump refused. Biden organized a town hall.

    It’s all so grotesque, this election. Does it matter whether Barr orders Durham to issue his report before the election? No.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  136. I see your comment 110, lurker. It was probably moderated because it has T-D-S.
    DRJ (aede82) — 10/9/2020 @ 4:26 pm

    Doh! Thanks.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  137. Gawain’s Ghost – Ever fish the Missouri River for Walleyes out of Chamberlin?

    mg (8cbc69)

  138. I see your comment 110, lurker. It was probably moderated because it has T-D-S.

    DRJ (aede82) — 10/9/2020 @ 4:26 pm

    Since when was the term “T-D-S” banned? Isn’t banning it making the case for it?

    norcal (a5428a)

  139. Change of pace
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=flp7gKg5G4E

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  140. Since when was the term “T-D-S” banned? Isn’t banning it making the case for it?

    norcal (a5428a) — 10/9/2020 @ 6:56 pm

    I think it was just so repetitively stated, like orange man bad, as a replacement for a real argument. Like ‘for these reasons you are making an irrational criticism of Trump, and the real story is ABC’. I think they would have blocked orange man bad but can’t realistically make it work.

    Strange times.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  141. @148 It’s just so rich in irony.

    norcal (a5428a)

  142. yeah it’s pretty funny when you think about that way

    Dustin (4237e0)

  143. Except concords atty proved it was bunkum, he was a veteran of the new york and palm beach us attys office

    No, he didn’t. They shut down the case because the attorneys were fishing for national security information for their clients.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  144. Someone mentioned this in another thread, but the piece by Bret Stephens about the 1619 Project is exceptional, all the more so because he risked his career to stand against his bosses and the historical malpractice by the creators of the project. It was a worthy project, but not the way they did it.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/nyt-1619-project-criticisms.html

    Paul Montagu (faa9d1)

  145. @ Kevin M, #125:

    Historically…

    Exactly. Historically.

    Trump will remain relevant.

    Demosthenes (5f62f9)

  146. @153 I agree. Trump broke the mold. Neither he nor his fans are likely to follow historical precedents.

    By the way, Demosthenes, I apologize to you for my binary choice rant from months ago. I can now see the wisdom of not making a selection for President, or voting for a third part candidate.

    norcal (a5428a)

  147. I can now see the wisdom of not making a selection for President, or voting for a third part candidate.

    So can I.

    Usually.

    Not this time.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  148. I’m sure Biden is going to win, and I don’t want him to have an even bigger mandate thanks to me. That could lead to all kinds of mischief in the way of abolishing the filibuster altogether, court-packing, Green New Deal, etc.

    norcal (a5428a)

  149. I am not at all certain that Biden will win. It’s a horse race between two broken down old nags and it’s a toss up which will founder first, the plodder or the kicker.

    nk (1d9030)

  150. @156. So was Dewey.
    And Hillary.
    And the New York Yankees in the 1960 World Series.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  151. On the other hand, Mr. President Donald Trump also very likely knows deep in his heart that he will never look like Kayleigh, or even Kellyanne, and be elected Miss Universe 2021, but it does not hurt to hope and dream, and we should not stop either.

    nk (1d9030)

  152. RIP Whitey Ford
    Met him in 1961 in K.C. he was running around the warning track exercising and came over and talked to my dad and I, talked golf for a 1,2 hour with my dad, Joe Peppitone yelled at Whitey to get in the dugout as the game was going to start, Whitey asked my dad if he wanted him to sign a ball foe me, my dad says sure, and Whitey yells at Peppitone to throw him a ball, he did and signed it. Whitey made me a baseball fan for life.
    What a generous man.

    mg (8cbc69)

  153. nk (1d9030) — 10/9/2020 @ 11:42 pm

    It will come down to whose voters “want it more!”

    felipe (023cc9)

  154. nk (1d9030) — 10/10/2020 @ 12:27 am

    True, he can’t even beat Giuliani.

    felipe (023cc9)

  155. Don’t you find it “interesting” that with Trump’s election, his constituency stopped whining about men in drag using the ladies’ room. Or was it women in drag using the men’s room? I can’t keep them straight.

    nk (1d9030)

  156. @ norcal, 154:

    By the way, Demosthenes, I apologize to you for my binary choice rant from months ago.

    As I recall, you have nothing to apologize for. I, on the other hand, was fairly obnoxious in my retort. So the apology is, and should be, mine.

    Demosthenes (afe452)

  157. 129.

    In an interview with Fox News Friday, Pompeo said, “We’ve got the emails, we’re getting them out.” It is unclear if he was referencing the deleted emails.

    No he wasn;t. How could ayone have such a thought?

    He means all the surviving emails that Hillary, back in 2016, asked to be released which were emails sent to and from a state.gov address plus a few others) amd I think without their attachments, thus causing a classification review and of course, some were deemed classified at birth, which would have happened with anyone using the State Department’s unclassified system (which her private server substituted for. They were actually more secure than the state.gov unclassified system, which was actually penetrated by the Russians, and they were secure from grand jury and Congressional subpoenas, presidential commissions and FOIA requests as well. Nobody has the deleted emails, although maybe the FBI could have had many because she backed them on Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer, but the FBI deliberately avoided having any human see what was there when they did a quick :”search” through them in October 2016.

    The State Department has released, in response to FOIA requests, many of the printed out emails that she supplied to the State Department (they had to be scanned) but they’re still holding on to some.

    Trump wants all of them released because he believes there could be some answers to some mysteries in them, and may have ordered them declassified or at least everything for which there are not strong objections. You won;t even find out what she did in her job, because she was areful to leave few traces. Many, many of her emails are requests to print out some news article. She commnicated verbally, or through her aides.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  158. 140. The third and last Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 was what we would no call virtual, with Kennedy in New York, Nixon in Los Angeles and the moderator in Chicago, but in those days candidates weren’t worried about their ability to interrupt or go over time as Trump is.

    Would you believe Nixon carried California in 1960?

    32 Electoral votes. It was close. 3,259,722 Rep. 3,224,099 Dem. Plurality: 35,623 votes. About one half of one percent.

    Sammy Finkelman (4eddd7)

  159. So did Ford in 1976. And Carter carried Texas. In Chicago, the “lakefront liberals” were the Republicans, and the law and order, church-going conservatives were the Democrats.

    nk (1d9030)

  160. And Reagan carried the City of Los Angeles in 1984 (largely due to San Fernando Valley voters).

    urbanleftbehind (4c2201)

  161. Would you believe Nixon carried California in 1960?

    Nixon was a California native, and represented the state in the House and Senate, so no.

    beer ‘n pretzels (042d67)

  162. The Durham report is still under wraps, but the Bash report on unmasking activities is leaked:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/barr-unmasking-review-no-charges/2020/10/13/0f63fd2e-0d67-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

    The federal prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William P. Barr to review whether Obama-era officials improperly requested the identities of individuals whose names were redacted in intelligence documents has completed his work without finding any substantive wrongdoing, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The revelation that U.S. Attorney John Bash, who left the department last week, had concluded his review without criminal charges or any public report will rankle President Trump at a moment when he is particularly upset at the Justice Department. The department has so far declined to release the results of Bash’s work, though people familiar with his findings say they would likely disappoint conservatives who have tried to paint the “unmasking” of names — a common practice in government to help understand classified documents — as a political conspiracy.

    The president in recent days has pressed federal law enforcement to move against his political adversaries and complained that a different prosecutor tapped by Barr to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation of his campaign will not be issuing any public findings before the election.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  163. That phrase “substantive wrongdoing” seems a bit weaselly, and it sure didn’t help Flynn any.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5334 secs.