The Robert Mueller Investigation

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

46 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

with the litany of pro-russian behavior of this president, and the undeniable contact his campaign has had with russia and now ukraine, and you want to blame the media for pointing it out/talking about it?

I mean, let me turn around and ask you a question that gets to the core of what I said. In hindsight do you think that the American media did a laudable job of reporting related to the CH investigation, the Steele dossier, the FISA concerns, etc.? Do you think that they were an asset to American democracy, bringing into focus the issues involved so that Americans could operate and engage from an informed place? Do you think that they challenged sufficiently the obvious disinformation fed to them by their "crime fighting" sources?

My answer to all three is "clearly no." Rather, they spent a substantial amount of bandwidth fixated on breathlessly promoting a fantastical conspiracy narrative rather than focusing on real shit.

If you come away from this story arc with the take away "Man, my confidence in Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, WaPo. etc. to serve as an unbiased source of information and reporting is only enhanced, they are doing a great service equipping the American electorate. I feel like they have really set themselves up credibly for the 2020 election." I am no not sure what to tell you.

"Democracy dies in the darkness." Indeed.

Should real shit like Helsinki, financial ties, and the many aspects of the story get play? Absolutely. Maybe more of that and less of this, less they feed into Trump's fake news narrative:

For Chuck: That is not intended to deflect from the GOP. The GOP is and has for a long time been been a morally rudderless party, withering on the vine as result of their failure to govern by the principles they claim to endorse. That process began long before Trump. Hopefully it concludes contemporaneous with Trumps conclusion.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

The risk of revealing that you are not dumb - that you function in work at a hight level, presumably interfacing with doctoral candidates among other things - is that you are being dishonest. What Anastasis has engaged in ceaselessly is more than bullshitting. It's rank dishonesty. The more interesting question is what motivates it.

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

Hugo Stiglitz · December 18, 2019

Thread needs more gifs

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Anastasis has a clear and pathological need to cast doubt on the Mueller report, as well as that of the OIG. He is not currently (and never has been) acting in good faith.

Yes, tell me about good faith jimmy. My perspective has been laid out, numerous times. You've been in most of those exchanges.

If you need the tl;dr, skip to the second quote.

On 12/28/2018 at 4:21 PM, Anastasis said:

And as far as owning what I believe, here you go. I believe that the Russian influence campaign, although technically sophisticated in the sense that they integrated multiple streams of data for deployment broadly across multiple platforms, was not particularly sophisticated in terms of content or the psychology involved. It was based on phishing a campaign staffer to expose the embarrassing internal communications of the HRC campaign and the DNC, and photoshopping pictures of jesus arm wrestling satan and posting them on facebook. Real James Bond shit. To the extent that their efforts were successful, they were not because of some essential colluding counterpart (Note: I would do a 180 on this point if coordination along the lines of what I outlined up post, in terms of coordinated content development and targeting was demonstrated). They were successful because we are a fundamentally broken society, with dysfunctional political parties, a corrupted political system, and an electorate with an attention span that is measured in three digit character count. The Russians exploited the weaknesses that originated from our toxic political environment, and yep, the responsibility for that is broad. Until we address the fundamental flaws that cut across almost every institution of our culture and society, until we make broad reforms in our political system including preferably a major realignment of our political parties, we're going to keep marching right into the turns of our political death spiral. We can and should flush out who exactly was coordinating with foreigners to influence American institutions and the election process. We can and should hang traitors. We can and should knee cap Russia. But none of that is going to change the ultimate trajectory of the American empire. It will end as most do, the result of internal decay.

On 3/24/2019 at 7:37 PM, Anastasis said:

Russia attacked the fault lines in the political system that we created out of our own dysfunction. Russia Russia Russia!!! is an external distraction that only provides cover for those that refuse to address our own political failings. On both sides. But it's just a punch line.

triplehorn · December 18, 2019

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

Mueller testified that inferences made about a link between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank server were flawed. I am capable of taking in new information to adjust my understanding accordingly.

Why don't you ? Why do you refuse to acknowledge what the evidence shows ? Or worse, why be dishonest about it ?

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Mueller testified that inferences made about a link between Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank server were flawed. I am capable of taking in new information to adjust my understanding accordingly.

I think that it is great that you have now comes to grips with the conclusions regarding the server conspiracy. Glad that we won't have to recycle that one yet again. Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories? I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

49 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Why don't you ? Why do you refuse to acknowledge what the evidence shows ? Or worse, why be dishonest about it ?

You are hell bent on getting me to acknowledge things that I acknowledged months ago. Good job triple, you have a real knack for super sleuthing.

On 5/4/2019 at 9:19 PM, Anastasis said:

We've come a far way from the theories espoused by some here, Trump campaign organizing and funding hackers working under Kremlin direction, coordinating targeting and content development, to where we are today, which is a good thing I think.

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

I think that Russia ran a social media operation, hacked the DNC, and hacked the campaign manager of the Clinton campaign. The latter was a pretty basic phishing attack that a junior intern should be trained against. I think that the releases of that information were damaging, and brought into focus a number of the concerns that pre-existed regarding Clinton. Her cozyness with wall street, the foundation, general political issues, and aspects related to the impartiality of the DNC during the primary. I think that a lot of people would like to deflect, rather than recognize that some of the inner workings when brought to light were damaging.

I think that the Kremlin acted to stoke existing political divisions because our shit is all fucked up and we are a failing society at this point.

I think that foreign influence on American politics is problematic. I can list a number of countries that I have serious concerns about their profound influence on our politics. Russia is not at the top of that list, but ranks high.

I think that domestic interference in the election had a more measurable direct impact on the election than foreign interference.

I think that everything that I said above is generally consistent with Mueller's report; however, if there is something specific in the report that you would like me to comment on, please quote it and I will be happy to respond.

triplehorn · December 18, 2019

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You are hell bent on getting me to acknowledge things that I acknowledged months ago. Good job triple, you have a real knack for super sleuthing.

What did you acknowledge ?

jimmyjazz · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, tell me about good faith jimmy.

Have I not been acting in good faith? Is that the implication here?

JimmyJames · December 18, 2019

5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes!! A Gif! Finally!

JimmyJames · December 18, 2019

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call continually pimping the craziest conspiracy theory nonsense related to Trump-Russia on this board, long after it has been discredited, if not dishonesty surpassing rank bullshitting.

The servers are an unmapped trail that takes us to a place we have already arrived. Uh, pass the grinder man.

Two gifs!! And on the same page! Lord help me!

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Have I not been acting in good faith? Is that the implication here?

What do you call manipulating another persons post to support your claim that a separate poster is a pathological liar, in attempt to cover for the fact that your claim was in reality based on a simple lack of reading comprehension? Intellectual honesty? Good faith? I mean, you tell me.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

jimmyjazz · December 18, 2019

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What do you call manipulating another persons post to support your claim that a separate poster is a pathological liar, in attempt to cover for the fact that your claim was in reality based on a simple lack of reading comprehension? Intellectual honesty? Good faith? I mean, you tell me.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, but I'm sure in your massive file storage of surly/shaggy threads you have supporting evidence that make you think you've been wronged.

LMAO. I act and react in real time around here. What you see is what you get. I might even contradict myself at times -- you know, like real human beings with good intentions can find themselves doing. You seem to have a clear ulterior motive. Whatevs, bro. I'm sure you're about to drop a data dump showing how much of a shitheel I am.

JimmyJames · December 18, 2019

I sense a longcat post coming that somehow proves whatever the hell Anastasis was talking about jimmyjazz. I didn’t understand it myself but was scared of being called stupid again, thus hurting my feelers.

jimmyjazz · December 18, 2019

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I sense a longcat post coming that somehow proves whatever the hell Anastasis was talking about jimmyjazz. I didn’t understand it myself but was scared of being called stupid again, thus hurting my feelers.

It will be entertaining, no doubt. I'm willing to take one for the team. "Bad jj, bad."

triplehorn · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

What did you acknowledge ?

I ask again, what did you acknowledge ?

You've demonstrated your skill at pulling remote quotes, albeit typically useless, from the web matrix, but nothing ? You're perfectly adept at rangey longcat posts deserving separate threads, but when asked for a basic response, repeatedly about your acknowledgement - that the Trump campaign publicly welcomed and privately sought Russian election interference to benefit Trump, and that Trump personally was in communication with Roger Stone around anticipated drops of goods stolen by Russian actors that were coordinated to optimize electoral prospects of Trump - when asked about that, you recoil to posting circular animation.

you're a fake. prove me wrong.

washparkhorn · December 18, 2019

We are sleepwalking into a Biden disaster in the 2020 election.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I ask again, what did you acknowledge ?

I post again, from over 7 months ago below.

Now answer me:

Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories? I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

On 5/4/2019 at 9:19 PM, Anastasis said:

We've come a far way from the theories espoused by some here, Trump campaign organizing and funding hackers working under Kremlin direction, coordinating targeting and content development, to where we are today, which is a good thing I think.

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

I think that Russia ran a social media operation, hacked the DNC, and hacked the campaign manager of the Clinton campaign. The latter was a pretty basic phishing attack that a junior intern should be trained against. I think that the releases of that information were damaging, and brought into focus a number of the concerns that pre-existed regarding Clinton. Her cozyness with wall street, the foundation, general political issues, and aspects related to the impartiality of the DNC during the primary. I think that a lot of people would like to deflect, rather than recognize that some of the inner workings when brought to light were damaging.

I think that the Kremlin acted to stoke existing political divisions because our shit is all fucked up and we are a failing society at this point.

I think that foreign influence on American politics is problematic. I can list a number of countries that I have serious concerns about their profound influence on our politics. Russia is not at the top of that list, but ranks high.

I think that domestic interference in the election had a more measurable direct impact on the election than foreign interference.

I think that everything that I said above is generally consistent with Mueller's report; however, if there is something specific in the report that you would like me to comment on, please quote it and I will be happy to respond.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

washparkhorn · December 18, 2019

10 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

you're a fake. prove me wrong.

Interesting coming from you - who told us about the frogmarch that would soon be coming out of the Bush II Oval Office.

Now Bush is Michelle O's favorite and he hob-nobs with Ellen Degeneres. Another one of your breathless hot takes I suppose.

You are not worth the effort.

And I wonder if you actually work for the Dirty Tricks department of the Republican Party - since you rally Republican support for odious Presidents so well.

Check yourself.

Edited December 18, 2019 by washparkhorn

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, but I'm sure in your massive file storage of surly/shaggy threads you have supporting evidence that make you think you've been wronged.

LMAO. I act and react in real time around here. What you see is what you get.

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I sense a longcat post coming that somehow proves whatever the hell Anastasis was talking about jimmyjazz. I didn’t understand it myself but was scared of being called stupid again, thus hurting my feelers.

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It will be entertaining, no doubt. I'm willing to take one for the team. "Bad jj, bad."

Well it really takes all the fun out of it when you just concede the point without any drama.

jimmyjazz · December 18, 2019

Well, it's certainly no fun when you don't bring anything of substance.

Carry on.

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it's certainly no fun when you don't bring anything of substance.

Carry on.

Projection has always been your go to device.

jimmyjazz · December 18, 2019

Another zinger!

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

6 hours ago, bernorange said:

FWIW:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/17/nuclear-devin-nunes-questions-fisc-judge-lack-of-candor-again-calls-for-dismantling-of-fisa-court/

From roughly 1:40 to 4:00:

Here's another order from Collyer. Probably flew under the radar, but this relates to the abuses that Rogers uncovered, which represents much broader invasive problems with the surveillance apparatus, beyond warrants and whatnot. But nobody here could have seen the latter coming.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

David Dennison · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

We are sleepwalking into a Biden disaster in the 2020 election.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, news outlets once again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC’s Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a “reckoning for the media.”

Of course, there won’t be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can’t confirm.

What isn't a gray area is that the president of the United States willingly and knowingly accepted the aid of a foreign state to help get elected. In fact, he asked for it publicly.

triplehorn · December 18, 2019

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the Trump campaign actively sought politically compromising material that could be used to discredit the Clinton campaign.

I think that the Trump campaign did not give a fuck where the information came from, including if it came from sources with a slavic surname or foreign connections.

I think that the Trump campaign was a clown show unfamiliar with how polite company run these sorts of opposition operations. Through a screen of lawyers.

I think that Trump actively and openly asked Russia to go after clinton, mostly as a rhetorical device in a series of pressers but probably with some real sense of yeah expose her shit if possible.

I recall this post. Granted, that was from May 2019 and things have changed. I'm not sure your present acknowledgement has evolved with new evidence.

your 1st sentence - who doesn't. that's oppo research 101. But there are applicable laws.

your 2nd sentence - you still believe this?? ---> Trump knew Russia hacked the DNC. Trump knew wikileaks was the outlet organ for Russian hacks. Trump knew Roger Stone was the conduit for the campaign around pending drops and coordination of drops and Trump communicated with Stone during the campaign about planned drops. Trump was directly in the know, knew it was wrong, and later directly lied to Mueller about knowing anything about the Russian military intelligence/wikileaks operation:

WaPo:

"Testifying at the trial of Roger Stone — a Trump friend accused of lying about his own WikiLeaks-related dealings — Rick Gates said he overheard a phone call in which Stone seemed to make the president aware of a planned WikiLeaks release. Gates and other witnesses testified that Stone posited himself as something of an intermediary between WikiLeaks and the campaign, with access to insider information.

Gates said his boss, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, had told him that Trump would be kept updated on WikiLeaks’ plans to release Democratic emails — which authorities concluded were hacked by Russia.

The testimony from the former high-ranking campaign official indicates that Trump’s knowledge of WikiLeaks was more advanced than he has previously stated. In written responses to questions from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III last year, Trump said he did not recall receiving any information about WikiLeaks disclosures in advance, being told that Stone “or anyone associated with my campaign” had discussions with WikiLeaks about future leaks, or ever discussing WikiLeaks with Stone."

your 3rd sentence - you still believe this?? --->Trump knew where it was coming from and he partook in knowledge and awareness of the planning of it. He was not "unfamiliar". Trump did it even after being warned by the FBI in the summer of 2016 Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign. Then Trump lied about it to Mueller.

your 4th sentence - you still believe this?? ---> It wasn't rhetorical. Knowing what we know today, it was a compromising form of public acceptance. Very reminiscent of the compromising announcement Trump was trying to get Zalensky to make last summer.

That's your grand acknowledgement?? it's shit.

DDD Dad · December 18, 2019

Anastasis · December 18, 2019

33 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

That's your grand acknowledgement?? it's shit.

I answered you, now answer me.

Do you care to update the board on your change of perspective regarding any of the other right out nonsense you seeded here for years on end? Do you have any regrets for straight up gassing this board out for 3 years with crazy ass twatter based conspiracy theories? I know I would. Shit, as I indicated at the time nearly a year ago, I was willing to take my medicine if I was wrong about the use of Steele's material by the FBI and the FISA applications. I would feel bad if I had so significantly misread the situation, would apologize to the board, and probably take a little self imposed time-out. Lucky for you guys, turns out I was almost completely correct.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Anastasis

Anastasis · December 19, 2019

triplehorn · December 19, 2019

15 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I answered you, now answer me.

You choose to remain being dishonest before admitting being wrong about this. What possesses you to be a dishonest troll on this thread is a curious thing.

And what there is to answer to you ? You're drumming an intentionally distorted and embellished revision. It's your opinion. igaf about your ridiculous opinion.

Look where we are today in contrast to what was relentlessly mocked as crazy assed conspiracy theories about *anything* in the Spring of 2017 about Trump/Russia collusion, or the threat of *any* Trump affiliate committing any crime, let alone going to prison for it. Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone - today all in prison or convicted and awaiting sentencing.

And yet here we are, Trump is determined to continue with the same conduct for the 2020 election that we have now come to understand occurred in 2016. Instead of attacking his opponent with the help of Roger Stone and Putin's Russian military intelligence apparatus and cutouts, he's doing it with Rudy Giuliani and (now indicted) actors funded by a high level Ukrainian mobster close to Putin who is also indicted and facing US extradition. Join us in the present, guy.

Anastasis · December 19, 2019

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

You choose to remain being dishonest before admitting being wrong about this. What possesses you to be a dishonest troll on this thread is a curious thing.

And what there is to answer to you ? You're drumming an intentionally distorted and embellished revision. It's your opinion. igaf about your ridiculous opinion.

Everybody here knows the right out nonsense you seeded on this board for three years. The wildest twatter conspiracy nonsense piped right in. Even posters who are inclined to your point of view distance themselves from the weight of the nonsense you posted here, because it tarnishes relatively reasonable takes even by association.

But I do like your style. Dial down the projection a bit though.

Biff Tannen · December 19, 2019

This thread sucks.

Anastasis · December 19, 2019

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This thread sucks.

Is the soundtrack helping at all? No?

Edited December 19, 2019 by Anastasis

JimmyJames · December 20, 2019

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This thread sucks.

One single poster has managed to completely ruin it and he’s the only one who can’t recognize that.

It is what it is.

Anastasis · December 20, 2019

20 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

One single poster has managed to completely ruin it and he’s the only one who can’t recognize that.

It is what it is.

I think that it has blossomed like a beautiful rose. But can appreciate that others might feel otherwise.

Biff Tannen · December 20, 2019

58 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that it has blossomed like a beautiful rose. But can appreciate that others might feel otherwise.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Biff Tannen

GRHorn · December 20, 2019

Hmmmmmm. I’d hate to think that the Right Honorable John Brennan would ever have done something inappropriate or illegal.

Biff Tannen · December 20, 2019

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Hmmmmmm. I’d hate to think that the Right Honorable John Brennan would ever have done something inappropriate or illegal.

I would actually like to read that, but paywall.

DDD Dad · December 20, 2019

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would actually like to read that, but paywall.

By Katie Benner and Julian E. Barnes

Dec. 19, 2019

WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Defenders of Mr. Brennan have long maintained he did nothing wrong and properly sounded the alarm on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he told MSNBC this fall that he would answer Mr. Durham’s questions if asked.

“I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has previously conducted politically fraught investigations, including allegations of wrongdoing in the C.I.A.’s detainee torture program. Attorney General William P. Barr appointed him this year to re-examine not only the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation but more broadly how the government uncovered Moscow’s election interference and dealt with those findings.

“He is not just looking at the F.B.I.,” Mr. Barr said in an interview broadcast Thursday evening on Fox News. “He is looking at other agencies.”

Calling it a “much broader investigation,” Mr. Barr added, “He is looking at all the conduct — both before and after the election.”

Mr. Brennan has come into Mr. Durham’s sights as he has focused on the intelligence community assessment released in January 2017 that used information from the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency to detail Russia’s meddling. They concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s chances by damaging his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Officials and analysts who worked on that assessment disagreed on how to treat two pieces of intelligence: the assertion that Mr. Putin wanted to help Mr. Trump win rather than simply sow chaos, and the contents of the dossier of salacious, unproven allegations about links between Russia and Trump associates compiled by a British former spy, Christopher Steele. His research, funded by Democrats, has been ground zero for conservative allegations that the origins of the Russia investigation were tainted.

“The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories — baseless conspiracy theories — in American political history,” Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016, publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the bureau did.

Mr. Barr has long been interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf, perhaps the intelligence report’s most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence.

The difference simply reflects the kinds of intelligence the agencies specialize in and how the United States learned about Mr. Putin’s intentions, current and former intelligence officials said. Mr. Putin avoids telephones, and the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic communications and calls, lacked strong intelligence about his intentions in 2016.

Instead, a C.I.A. informant close to the Kremlin was a key source for that finding. Mr. Durham has been trying to learn more about any internal debate inside the C.I.A. over the conclusion, former intelligence officials said.

Mr. Brennan told lawmakers at a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017 the N.S.A.’s confidence level was the “lone exception” to the intelligence agencies’ otherwise united front about Russia’s interference.

Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of Utah, said the C.I.A.’s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow’s intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.

“I don’t agree with the conclusion, particularly that it’s such a high level of confidence,” Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.

“I just think there should’ve been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and especially for those who didn’t also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of confidence,” he added.

Mr. Durham’s investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele’s allegations in the appendix of their assessment.

Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump’s allies have long asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence agency’s assessment.

Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment, while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix. Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Mr. Steele’s information “was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with the other agencies participating in drafting” the declassified intelligence assessment about Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele’s information with the team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.

Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper about the bureau’s efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be “credible on its face.”

But C.I.A. analysts still wanted to leave the dossier out of the assessment, as it was not vetted. Mr. Brennan’s allies have said he was among the officials who wanted to omit the dossier from the assessment.

Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele’s information.

Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele’s material in the appendix. After BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment about Russia’s election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his decision to publicly state that the intelligence community “has not made any judgment” about the document’s reliability.

Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.

Mr. Brennan told Congress that he had no firsthand knowledge of any attempts by the F.B.I. to vet the dossier. Mr. Clapper went further, testifying at a separate hearing that no evidence existed in the entire assessment to definitively say whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russian officials. He also said that the intelligence community “couldn’t corroborate the sourcing” of Mr. Steele’s dossier.

Mr. Brennan’s defenders said he always kept the dossier at arm’s length, arguing against using its findings about the Russian interference campaign in the assessment. The C.I.A. viewed it as “internet rumor,” an F.B.I. official told the inspector general.

It is not clear how much information the C.I.A. has provided investigators, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment. The intelligence agencies are continuing to cooperate with Mr. Durham’s investigation, a person familiar with the inquiry said.

Anastasis · December 20, 2019

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would actually like to read that, but paywall.

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings

The federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry is examining testimony by the former C.I.A. director John Brennan and seeking his communications records.

By Katie Benner and Julian E. Barnes

Dec. 19, 2019

WASHINGTON — The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

Mr. Durham’s pursuit of Mr. Brennan’s records is certain to add to accusations that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies. The president has long attacked Mr. Brennan as part of his narrative about a so-called deep state cabal of Obama administration officials who tried to sabotage his campaign, and Mr. Trump has held out Mr. Durham’s investigation as a potential avenue for proving those claims.

Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments, including May 2017 testimony to Congress, about both the dossier and about any debate among the intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia’s interference, the people said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

SIGN UP

The people familiar with Mr. Durham’s inquiry stressed that it was continuing and it was not clear what crimes, if any, he had uncovered. Representatives for Mr. Brennan and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Defenders of Mr. Brennan have long maintained he did nothing wrong and properly sounded the alarm on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and he told MSNBC this fall that he would answer Mr. Durham’s questions if asked.

The perfect gift for everyone on your list.

Gift subscriptions to The Times. Starting at $25.

“I feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community, and I feel very confident and comfortable with what I did, so I have no qualms whatsoever about talking with investigators who are going to be looking at this in a fair and appropriate manner,” Mr. Brennan said.

Mr. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has previously conducted politically fraught investigations, including allegations of wrongdoing in the C.I.A.’s detainee torture program. Attorney General William P. Barr appointed him this year to re-examine not only the origins of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation but more broadly how the government uncovered Moscow’s election interference and dealt with those findings.

“He is not just looking at the F.B.I.,” Mr. Barr said in an interview broadcast Thursday evening on Fox News. “He is looking at other agencies.”

Editors’ Picks

The ‘S.N.L.’ Stars Who Lasted, and the Ones Who Flamed Out

Robert De Niro Thinks Donald Trump Is Worse Than Any Gangster He’s Played