From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation
By Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos

NY Times
May 16, 2018

http://tinyurl.com/y9faqdz8

[My comments in brackets]

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair
of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark.

Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and
Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.

[And remember, Papadopoulos will eventually plead guilty.]

The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel
investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.

This month, the Justice Department inspector general is expected to release the
findings of its lengthy review of the F.B.I.’s conduct in the Clinton case. The results are certain to renew debate over decisions by the F.B.I. director at the time, James
B. Comey, to publicly chastise Mrs. Clinton in a news conference, and then announce the reopening of the investigation days before Election Day. Mrs. Clinton has said those actions buried her presidential hopes.

Those decisions stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials
and a review of
documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly.

Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case. Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case
before Election Day,
which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy.

Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street
at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’
m not worried about our side,” he wrote.

Only about five Justice Department officials knew the full scope of the case, officials said, not the dozen or more who might normally be briefed on a major national security case.

[Note: the FBI handled this carefully and secretively. They were
actually going out of their way to make sure they took no biased
action against the Trump campaign, because everyone thought Clinton
would win, and they didn't want there to be any appearance of bias
against the Trump campaign.]

The facts, had they surfaced, might have devastated the Trump campaign: Mr. Trump’s future national security adviser was under investigation, as was his campaign chairman. One adviser appeared to have Russian intelligence contacts. Another was
suspected of being a Russian agent himself.

[Oh God, how I wish those facts could have surfaced back then,
and that they had not worked so hard to be so fair to those assholes.]

In the Clinton case, Mr. Comey has said he erred on the side of transparency. But in the face of questions from Congress about the Trump campaign, the F.B.I.
declined to tip its hand. And when The New York Times tried to assess the state
of the
investigation in October 2016, law enforcement officials cautioned against drawing any conclusions, resulting in a story that significantly played down the case.

Mr. Comey has said it is unfair to compare the Clinton case, which was winding down in the summer of 2016, with the Russia case, which was in its earliest stages. He said he did not make political considerations about who would benefit from each decision.

[I see why Comey did what he did, and I believe he did his best
to be politically impartial.]

But underpinning both cases was one political calculation: that Mrs. Clinton would win and Mr. Trump would lose. Agents feared being seen as withholding information or going too easy on her. And they worried that any overt actions against Mr. Trump’s
campaign would only reinforce his claims that the election was being rigged against him.

[When actually, the election was being rigged against Clinton.
And that is one of the reasons why she lost it. And naturally,
Trump is LYING about everything, like he always does. Fucking baby,
kept howling about a "rigged election" when in reality they were
all being SOOO careful to make sure there was no bias against HIM,
in spite of how they had evidence his people were in bed with Russia.]

The F.B.I. now faces those very criticisms and more. Mr. Trump says he is the victim of a politicized F.B.I. He says senior agents tried to rig the election by declining to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, then drummed up the Russia investigation to undermine his
presidency. He has declared that a deeply rooted cabal — including his own appointees — is working against him.

That argument is the heart of Mr. Trump’s grievances with the federal investigation. In the face of bipartisan support for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump and his allies have made a priority of questioning how the investigation
was conducted in late 2016 and trying to discredit it.

“It’s a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said last month on Fox News. “And they know that, and I’ve been able to message it.”

Congressional Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes of California, have begun to dig into F.B.I. files, looking for evidence that could undermine the investigation. Much remains unknown and classified. But those who saw the investigation up
close, and many of those who have reviewed case files in the past year, say that far from gunning for Mr. Trump, the F.B.I. could actually have done more in the final months of 2016 to scrutinize his campaign’s Russia ties.

“I never saw anything that resembled a witch hunt or suggested that the bureau’s approach to the investigation was politically driven,” said Mary McCord, a 20-year Justice Department veteran and the top national security prosecutor during much of
the investigation’s first nine months.

[Exactly. In reality, it was the opposite of a witch hunt.
That whiny stupid bitch got elected because there WAS NO bitch hunt.
And there probably should have been one.]

Crossfire Hurricane spawned a case that has brought charges against former Trump campaign officials and more than a dozen Russians. But in the final months of 2016, agents faced great uncertainty — about the facts, and how to respond.

Crossfire Hurricane began exactly 100 days before the presidential election, but if agents were eager to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign, as the president has suggested, the messages do not reveal it. “I cannot believe we are seriously looking at
these allegations and the pervasive connections,” Mr. Strzok wrote soon after
returning from London.

The mood in early meetings was anxious, former officials recalled. Agents had just closed the Clinton investigation, and they braced for months of Republican-led hearings over why she was not charged. Crossfire Hurricane was built around the same core of
agents and analysts who had investigated Mrs. Clinton. None was eager to re-enter presidential politics, former officials said, especially when agents did not know what would come of the Australian information.

[Clinton wasn't charged because she had no criminal intent.
She was simply technologically naive and overly concerned for
her own convenience. Although this was negligence, no serious
problems were ever tied to the resulting situation.]

The question they confronted still persists: Was anyone in the Trump campaign tied to Russian efforts to undermine the election?

The F.B.I. investigated four unidentified Trump campaign aides in those early months, congressional investigators revealed in February. The four men were Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Mr. Papadopoulos, current and former officials said.
Each was scrutinized because of his obvious or suspected Russian ties.

(Here are the key themes, dates and characters in the Russia investigation.)

Mr. Flynn, a top adviser, was paid $45,000 by the Russian government’s media arm for a 2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Manafort, the campaign chairman, had lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine
and worked with an associate who has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence.

Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, was well known to the F.B.I. He had previously been recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign.

Lastly, there was Mr. Papadopoulos, the young and inexperienced campaign aide whose wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had
political dirt on Mrs. Clinton. But even if the F.B.I. had wanted to read his emails or intercept his calls, that evidence was not enough to allow it. Many months passed, former officials said, before the F.B.I. uncovered emails linking Mr. Papadopoulos
to a Russian intelligence operation.

[But they DID link Papadopoulous to a Russian intelligence op.
And he pleaded guilty.]

Mr. Trump was not under investigation, but his actions perplexed the agents. Days after the stolen Democratic emails became public, he called on Russia to uncover more. Then news broke that Mr. Trump’s campaign had pushed to change the Republican
platform’s stance on Ukraine in ways favorable to Russia.

[That's the thing about Trump being a total asshole. It's hard to tell
if he's just being a contrarian as usual or what?]

The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence
agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three
officials said.

[They had evidence of a Russian attack on the election.]

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said that after studying the investigation as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he saw no evidence of political motivation in the opening of the investigation.

“There was a growing body of evidence that a foreign government was attempting to interfere in both the process and the debate surrounding our elections, and their job is to investigate counterintelligence,” he said in an interview. “That’s what
they did.”

[Even reasonable Republicans were concluding there was good reason for
an investigation and good evidence of an attack, while Trump kept calling
it all "a hoax" for months - the lying sack of shit that he is.]

Andrew G. McCabe in December in Washington. Mr. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty, giving ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I. cannot be trusted.

[But McCabe's dishonesty had *nothing at all* to do with the Trump
campaign or the Russia investigation. So Trump's claims in that
regard were entirely insubstantial as usual. He always spins
everything to divert attention away from his own lies and wrongdoings.]

Abounding Criticism

Looking back, some inside the F.B.I. and the Justice Department say that Mr. Comey should have seen the political storm coming and better sheltered the bureau. They question why he consolidated the Clinton and Trump investigations at headquarters, rather
than in a field office. And they say he should not have relied on the same team
for both cases. That put a bull’s-eye on the heart of the F.B.I. Any misstep in either investigation made both cases, and the entire bureau, vulnerable to criticism.

And there were missteps. Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director, was cited by internal investigators for dishonesty about his conversations with
reporters about Mrs. Clinton. That gave ammunition for Mr. Trump’s claims that the F.B.I.
cannot be trusted. And Mr. Strzok and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. lawyer, exchanged texts criticizing Mr. Trump, allowing the president to point to evidence of bias when they became public.

The messages were unsparing. They questioned Mr. Trump’s intelligence, believed he promoted intolerance and feared he would damage the bureau.

[Trump's intelligence is questionable. On policy matters, he's a simpleton. He's also devious and dishonest as hell and he DOES promote intolerance.
And he DID damage the bureau. But none of that had a thing to do with
the honesty of the investigation. All Trump EVER looks for is more
rhetorical 'ammunition' for propaganda, he's never concerned with truth.]

The inspector general’s upcoming report is expected to criticize those messages for giving the appearance of bias. It is not clear, however, whether inspectors found evidence supporting Mr. Trump’s assertion that agents tried to protect Mrs. Clinton,
a claim the F.B.I. has adamantly denied.

[There has been no evidence of that so far. And since when is the F.B.I.
such a big friend of liberals? Jesus, the very idea is ridiculous.
Comey himself was Republican until he switched to being Independent.]

Mr. Rubio, who has reviewed many of the texts and case files, said he saw no signs that the F.B.I. wanted to undermine Mr. Trump. “There might have been individual agents that had views that, in hindsight, have been problematic for those agents,” Mr.
Rubio said. “But whether that was a systemic effort, I’ve seen no evidence of it.”


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)