Wednesday, May 27, 2020

I don't care what kind of document manifested the Trump investigation with it's contacts with Russia, it was correct.

The author of the article is a former FBI agent. (click here) To begin, Strzok was dismissed from the Special Counsel investigation. The Special Counsel found exactly what was proposed in the Strzok memo. This mess looks more like a technicality that defense attorneys use to destroy prosecution. The content of the Special Counsel investigation is based in measurable evidence. Durham's investigation is acting as a defense attorney to unwind the charges brought by the investigation, including the Russians whose charges have already been dismissed by Barr.

May 27, 2020
By Kevin R. Brock

...Second, (click here) the Crossfire Hurricane case was opened as a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation. A FARA investigation involves a criminal violation of law — in this case, a negligent or intentional failure to register with the U.S. government after being engaged by a foreign country to perform services on its behalf — that is punishable by fines and imprisonment. It is rarely investigated....

...This, however, was no normal EC. Try as we might to spot them, those reasons are not found anywhere in the document. Despite redactions, it has been fairly well established that an Australian diplomat, Andrew Downer, met a low-level Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, in a London bar for drinks; Downer then reported the conversation, which eventually made its way to U.S. officials in London.

The Strzok EC quotes verbatim an email authored by Downer. In it, Downer claims Papadopoulos “suggested” to him that the Trump team had received “some kind of suggestion” of assistance from Russia regarding information damaging to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. In other words, a suggestion of a suggestion....

There is no hearsay in Downer's contact with Peter Strzok. 

...This, despite Downer also offering two exculpatory statements in the same email: 1) It was “unclear” how the Trump campaign might have reacted to the Russian claims and 2) the Russians likely were going to do what they were going to do with the information whether anyone in the Trump campaign cooperated with them or not....

Strzok is correct, there was much that was unknown about the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia. Just because the Trump campaign was disappointed in the focus of the Russians they met with at the Trump Tower Meeting doesn't mean there wasn't a sincere interest on the Trump Campaign to "get dirt on Clinton" from the Russians.

This is more nonsense from the Trump White House. It is an opinion paper and if this is all the evidence Durham has, then he doesn't have anything except technicalities.

I am not interested in technicalities. I am interested in protecting the USA democracy and a current administration unwilling to protect our democracy.

The meeting in the Oval Office to celebrate the firing of Former Director Comey was not reported by the Special Counsel, it was first reported by a gate camera at the White House by CNN. The arrest of Butina was a separate investigation that provided a highly corrupt universe enforced by Russian money. The threat by Trump to the USA was completely obvious when finally unearthed.

Butina and the Comey firing is only a small part of the evidence against him. As a matter in fact there was so much evidence he is impeached! He was impeached by independent investigations by the US House.