Name calling shows weakness

Julie Reeder Publisher

"Racist!", "Homophobe", "book banner!" bla bla bla. Bullying and name calling is a lazy and low class way to try and dismiss someone without having the decency to actually have dialogue. Or maybe people do it because they don't have the ability to discuss the topic intelligently. Or, it seems as if some people just think so highly of themselves that they can be rude and mistreat others because they are entitled. Not sure! But as soon as I encounter someone who chooses name calling, I see it as weakness. Better to engage in dialog than bullying and name calling, especially as it pertains to school board issues where younger people may take note.

Policy Advisor Jake Sullivan claiming that they “had not seen the declassified material before,” and that notions of any such plan were “ridiculous.” Sullivan is currently President Joe Biden’s National Security Advisor, while Podesta is a senior advisor to Biden on climate change.

The report further notes that officials at the Department of State’s Russia desk, in 2016, were also monitoring Trump’s campaign rhetoric and comparing it to “Putin-supported European right-wing candidates.” It states that this information was supplied to the Clinton campaign by former State Department officials, who claimed they were “sounding an internal alarm” about Trump and were “tracking” the rhetoric, which refers to assignments to Foreign Service Officers to closely monitor certain events.

Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr in 2019, was tasked with investigating the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign for alleged contact with the Russian government. That FBI investigation, led by Comey, who Trump fired shortly after assuming office, was later taken over by Special Counsel Robert Muller, who later reported that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump campaign officials and operatives of the Russian government.

Durham also faulted FBI agents for abusing surveillance laws, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), when investigating Trump campaign officials, such as foreign policy advisor Carter Page. Durham’s report concluded that FBI agents had a “predisposition to investigate Trump” even absent evidence of probable cause to do so.

By contrast, the report describes “disparate treatment” of Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by the FBI during the election, including when the FBI received intelligence that an unnamed foreign agent was traveling to the U.S. to contribute to her campaign. It notes that an application for a FISA warrant into this agent was submitted to FBI Headquarters by field agents for approval, but was left “in limbo for approximately four months… because everyone was ‘super more careful’ and scared with the big name [Clinton] involved,” according to the report.

The report also notes that the FBI failed to document intelligence of an “illegal contribution” made to Clinton’s campaign at the behest of a foreign government in exchange for political influence, which is illegal under U.S. law. It notes that the foreign operative who arranged the donation claimed that Clinton’s campaign officials “were fully aware from the start” of the plan.

“The FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging — both then and in hindsight — that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of [a] foreign power,” the report read.

Durham’s investigation led to three indictments, one indictee being Michael Sussman, a former partner at left-wing law firm Perkins Coie and attorney for Clinton’s presidential campaign. He was later found not guilty of lying to federal agents.

Editor’s note: This is a breaking news story and will be updated.