Finally the Durham report lands

Republicans have been looking for a white knight who will finally prove that the deep state conspired to support Hillary Clinton and block Trump as much as possible. Sadly for them, evidence for this has been spotty, and there were never enough connections with the evidence that existed to make a convincing story of it. The Inspector General Michael Horowitz was supposed to blow the whole mess wide open, but he didn't come through. So Durham was the next and probably last white knight. 

Durham really tried to deliver. However it's rather hard if you can't fabricate evidence. When you're stuck with lackluster evidence, you just shine it up as much as possible, and this is what Durham did. 

Mostly he hammers on the FBI for moving too aggressively to a full investigation instead of a smaller investigation. He also hammers on the FISA warrant application, but that's a repeat of the criticism from IG Horowitz, so not new info. 

So it's page after page of Durham droning on about the FBI agents being too serious, not gentle enough, not having a light enough touch, being tougher on Trump campaign officials than Hillary campaign officials. Why were they so hot to investigate more deeply? Gee, Durham seems to think it was bias against Trump, and nothing to do with the unprecendented hacking and release of DNC documents. 

New from the Durham report: The Clinton Plan

I did learn something new from the Durham report. I'm not sure how I missed it, but back in late July 2016, some intelligence floated in that Hillary Clinton approved a campaign plan (the Clinton plan) to fabricate information and spin that Trump was conspiring with the Russians. This plan (which was just an allegation that floated in from somewhere unspecified) wasn't taken seriously by the intelligence community, so they didn't seriously look into whether there was such a plan and it was being executed. 

Now a lot of conservatives thought or still think that this is real. The deep state (which includes Hillary) did join together to fabricate the Russia hoax, and it was wildly successful. 

I knew about the deep state version of the theory, but not the Clinton plan version. The deep state version has Brennan, Hillary, Susan Rice, Obama, Biden, Comey, Clapper, FusionGPS and some others, and it's been around since before the 2016 election. I didn't hear about the Clinton Plan version until the Durham report. 

There are data points that support the deep state conspiracy theory, including the existence of Crossfire Hurricane, the Steele dossier, the texts between Page and Strzok, unmasking of names in intelligence, etc. However, a more likely explanation is that the US does have counterintelligence agencies, and they are activated in the case of Russians fucking acting like assholes and interfering in US elections. So having an investigation like Crossfire Hurricane is a reasonable and legitimate response to the fucking hacking. Unmasking--reasonable! Obama briefed--reasonable! And so on. 

The Steele dossier was a typical kind of opposition research, but it sure backfired, so that was a mistake, and it's on Hillary. The moral of that episode is not to get your oppo research from disreputable folks like Russia intelligence sources. Just don't do it because it's likely to be shit and you don't want contact with it. 

Image: sunjournal.com

Extras. Horowitz report. Wittes of Lawfare is slowly digesting the Durham report. A 2018 version of the Russiagate conspiracy theory. This article may contain the best synopsis of the Clinton Plan. However there isn't a lot there. Clinton hardly had to invent fibs about Trump and Russia because Russia and Trump were creating so much ammunition on their own. 

Surprising new factoids about the Ashli Babbitt shooting

I checked the available video of Ashli Babbitt again and again. Unfortunately, I can no longer find the long video by Jayden X that showed the bashing of the doors so clearly. However, so many of the facts have been known for so long, I was surprised to find out new information. 

For one thing, Babbitt wasn't unarmed, but had a folding knife in her pocket. Also there was a report that the officer shouted and warned before the shot. This comes from a Fox News article with details from the investigation. These details tend to support the view that the shooting was justified. Ironically, the article headline is: Babbitt shooting internal police docs reveal 'no good reason for shooting,' according to Judicial Watch. Hmmmm, not a lot of support for that odd conclusion. 

Politifact describes the hallway that was being defended, and provides a lead to a bombshell description of the scene from a GOP representative:

Congressman recalls moment woman was shot inside Capitol building

(ABC) Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he witnessed the moment a police officer fatally shot a woman inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, as Trump supporters stormed the building.

Mullin said the shooting happened as an angry, pro-Trump mob that had been protesting outside broke into the Capitol building and attempted to force entry into the House chamber, which was still in session.

"They were trying to come through the front door, which is where I was at in the chamber, and in the back they were trying to come through the speaker's lobby, and that's problematic when you're trying to defend two fronts," Mullin told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an interview Thursday on "Good Morning America."

"When they broke the glass in the back, the (police) lieutenant that was there, him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this, and he didn't have a choice at that time," Mullin said. "The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he [drew] his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force."

A U.S. Capitol Police officer in plainclothes fired his service weapon as "multiple individuals" tried to gain access to the House room, striking a woman. She was transported to a local hospital where she was pronounced dead, according to Robert Contee, chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. Authorities have not yet released the woman's identity.

Mullin said police "showed a lot of restraint" and "did the best they could."

"That young lady's family's lives changed and his (the officer's) life also changed," Mullin said. "But what also happened is that mob that was trying to go through that door, they left. And his actions will may be judged in a lot of different ways moving forward, but his actions I believe saved people's lives even more. Unfortunately, it did take one though."

Mullin said he "never thought" he would witness such a scene unfold in the United States.

"I get people being passionate and being frustrated, but there's a right way and and wrong way to do things and yesterday was wrong. There was absolutely no excuse for it," he said. "We're very fortunate a lot more people didn't actually lost their life. One is way too many." 

This is fascinating, and worth copying in whole because it shows that Congress members were still in the chamber and endangered by the breach. Also, Mullin was acquainted with the officer, and his opinion was that the officer did his duty and saved many lives. Video of the Congressman shows this. 

Image: the-sun.com

Extras. A couple videos showing the situation when Babbitt was shot.  The terse statement from the DOJ that the shooter won't be charged because a very high criterion can't be reached. That sells the officer short. I wanted more analysis, and found this from Lawfare. I don't agree with how they analyze the shooting, but then they are looking strictly at legal. My view is that Babbitt was part of the violent mob, there was a grave danger of death or great bodily harm, and the officer didn't have a viable alternative. If he had tried to arrest her, he wouldn't have been able to prevent the next people through the breach. If he let her proceed, that was a violent person in that space, and more coming in seconds. So he did what was needed. 

Links (1 of 2)

My tabs overfloweth.

Decoding anonymous sources. A good guide from Lawfare. How to interpret what reporters write, indicating how many sources they have and where they are. A good news organization follows these unwritten rules. Bad organizations pretend they follow the rules, but actually make up sources, use known unreliable sources, misleadingly edit and quote, and don't fire reporters and editors who don't follow good standards.

Now, one of those sources. Seymour Hersh is implicated in the Seth Rich-to-Wikileaks story. He claims it's just a rumor. I should dedicate a post to the Seth Rich story, but I'm too lazy. Briefly, Rich was a low-level staffer at the DNC or Hillary campaign and was killed in his DC neighborhood. Cue the conspiracy theories. Fox News got ahead of itself and coerced a contributor to say stuff he didn't actually believe, prompting him to sue. Seymour Hersh is involved because he is supposedly the source of some of that info. There's a tape of Hersh talking about the case. Strangely the tape begins and ends abruptly. I have suspicions that Hersh contradicts or says it's mostly his speculation. I haven't trusted edited tapes since Shirley Sherrod as smeared. Nonetheless, Hersh isn't saying what he knows. He ought to clear it up since the concern about a conspiracy is important here.

Sheriffs as the supreme law. Here is another right-wing idea to counter big, bad government. The concept is that the sheriff, being locally elected and accountable, is the supreme authority in a county, and doesn't have to enforce national laws. Remember Bull Connor and this doesn't seem so good. Joe Arpaio is supposedly an advocate for this idea. Luckily, he lost his last bid for reelection.

Another worrisome tactic to watch. Using Freedom-of-Information requests to undermine and sue small local school districts. Tactic supported by Steve Bannon. The goal is mirky, but maybe it's hidden in the settlements.

Russian election interference (another example). Something to watch. Fake accounts on Facebook bought ad time from Facebook. The purchase was automated, so even Facebook didn't know it was happening. Parking this timeline of Russia interference denial here. Hoping I can find it again.

Image: bostonglobe.com

So many links

I have too many links to do justice to each of them, so I'll just blast out a post and save them for posterity.

The obligation to listen. Great story by Andrew Sullivan reminding us that we need to consider all opinions. Each opinion tells us something important. I firmly believe it's wrong to summarily dismiss the heartfelt beliefs of other people.

Not repealed yet. In March it looked like the GOP wouldn't figure out how to compromise and pass a replacement for Obamacare. This article reminds us that the Senate still has to work on it. I think they will get it done, and I suspect it will follow the House model.

Fired by Trump. Lawfare is an excellent resource. One article on Sally Yates testimony about warning about Michael Flynn. Two companion articles about the relationship of Trump and the fired FBI director James Comey. One from the New York Times, the other from Lawfare. The Times article is the easier read.

Oh, the irony of Trump calling anyone else a 'nutjob.' Even more irony that he's saying it to visiting Russian ministers. It's amazing that Trump believed he could make the Russia investigation go away. What a fool he is.

Report on Russian hacking. I'll be reading the unclassified version of the report about the Russians hacking the DNC. It's on my list and pinned to my browser tab. I'll get to it, I promise.

Questionable intelligence. I'm not sure I believe this claim: "We just got a huge sign that the US intelligence community believes the Trump dossier." Saving it just in case it's true. I'm still very dubious.

Russian Good Times. Finally, I just have to laugh about the Russian Times complaining about the journalism of anyone else. I'm saving a closer read for later, but I just had to check if there is a comments section. Yes, there is, and what a window into hell it is. I'm sharing it below.

Image: rt.com