Folks, your narrator worked in an environment similar to that described in the Durham report. Suffice to say that, had I or my people done anything close to what is in this report, we wouldn’t have been fired — we would’ve been prosecuted.

I have only had time to fully digest the report’s Intro and Executive Summary. They are beyond damning.

The report is laid out logically. I will adhere to the same formatting.

INTRODUCTION

Not all miscarriages of justice are prosecute-able.

FBI appears to have intentionally ignored its own procedures.

The money graf:

“Indeed, based on the evidence… neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Wow.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Opening Crossfire Hurricane

The FBI had no basis to open up “Crossfire Hurricane,” its investigation of the Trump campaign.

In investigating allegations of foreign interference targeted at the Hillary Clinton campaign, the FBI proceeded with extreme caution. Hillary in fact got a defensive briefing from the FBI.

Similar caution was not employed for the investigation of foreign interference involving the Trump campaign. Further, Trump did not get a defensive briefing at any point.

The FBI opened its investigation of the Trump campaign under the direction of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, based on totally uncorroborated intel from Australia.

The Crossfire Hurricane Investigation

The investigation was opened as a Full Investigation [note: this is a designation allowing all sorts of penetrative investigative techniques] without ever talking to the original reporters, attempting any corroboration, or doing any internal database searches to discover any corroboration — all of which is FBI procedure (and simply logical).

Using the allegations from Australia, the FBI went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to get warrants on Carter Page and George Papadopoulos (these warrants are known as “FISA” warrants, as in “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” warrants).

The FBI did not secure a FISA warrant on Papadopoulos, and they only got one on Page after they received the Steele dossier (see below).

The Steele dossier was obtained from Christopher Steele, a reported former British intel member. The dossier couldn’t be corroborated by Steele himself or his Russian “sub-source,” Igor Danchenko — even after the FBI offered Steele $1 million (you read that right — a million bucks. Of our tax money. Talk about desperate for a smoking gun).

The FBI then ran human sources into Page and Papadopolous.  Both Page and Papadoplouos made numerous exculpatory statements to these sources.  The FBI ignored these statements and withheld them from the FISC (to me, that is perjury).

The AUSA on the case, the report notes, was subsequently prosecuted for falsifying info to the FISC.

The Steele Dossier

Nonetheless, despite the exculpatory statements of Page, the FBI secured four FISA warrants on Page, based on the (uncorroborated) Steele dossier.

The Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary’s campaign.

Igor Danchenko — Steele’s Primary “Sub-Source”

The report concludes that Igor Danchenko, a Russian living in D.C., who had previously been assessed by the FBI as a likely Russian asset, was Steele’s “sub-source.”

Danchenko fabricated his contributions to the Steele dossier.

Danchencko’s Relationship With Charles Dolan

Enter Charles Dolan, a Democratic PR operative, who appears to have made up most of the Steele dossier.

Under questioning, Dolan admits he made up the information re: Paul Manafort that was in the dossier.

For some reason, and despite his being the main source (along with Danchenko) of the Steele report, the FBI never even interviewed Dolan — this despite Danchenko telling the FBI that Dolan was the main source for the dossier.

All this intel re: Danchenko, Dolan, and the Steele Dossier, the FBI withheld from the FISC.

The Alfa Bank Allegations

Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann was the source of allegations of a covert relationship b/w Donald Trump and Alfa Bank, a secretive Russian bank.

Sussmann was telling FBI General Counsel James Baker this, claiming to be acting on his own; in fact, he was acting on behalf of the Hillary campaign (he could, at the least, be disbarred for this).

Upon investigation, two separate U.S. intelligence agencies (not named) determined the allegations to be false.

Nonetheless, Sussmann also provided this material to media — who ran with it.

Furthermore, the Clinton campaign tweeted the Sussman allegations out.

Conclusion

The FBI failed to uphold its mission.

The FBI, at best, displayed a “cavalier attitude” towards accuracy and completeness in seeking FISA warrants on the Trump campaign.

The FBI disregarded exculpatory information regarding its “targets” in Crossfire Hurricane.

Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities.

And then there is this statement, which I believe I have to print in full:

“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, or knowingly helping another person in such activities.”

(The emphasis is mine. Folks, that is a CRIME).

So who are the villains here?

Clearly, there are plenty. But at the end of the day, all roads seem to lead in one direction:

 

Folks, what did this country ever do to deserve this woman?