On July 31 and August 1, the New York Times rose two stories that cast cold water at the release of the previously classified “annex” to the report of special counselor John Durham of May 23, 2023. But the author-Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman-Akliedd their readers of the start of the Ruse starting the Ruse starting the start of the Ruse starting the start of the Ruse start. Literally False Documents has established “Feedce of the Ruse of literally False documents in the Russian, in the Ruse of a literally False Documents in the Russian, in the Russian budget. Intelligence.
That is the basis on which The Times, Washington Post, Politico, Network News and other Legacy Media have focused their reports to the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation by President Trump of the FBI Bijrie – which we know was “falsified” by the FBI, CIA and Obama Witte Huis.
Jonathan Turley: Democrats attracted the greatest political scammer ever to Americans. It is finally unraveled
Part of Durham’s study investigated why the FBI received nothing – literally – after receiving the Russian intelligence information at the end of July 2016, contrary to how the FBI responded to information that received almost 60 days old from an Australian diplomat about a meeting in a London bar.
The appendix contains previously classified information about the reception of “Special Intelligence” during the first part of 2016 of a friendly foreign government, which shows the apparently real -time knowledge of Russia of the inner machinations of the Presidential Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign.
The appendix is a document written by the Durham team. Because the source documents on which the Russian memos were based were not provided – or at least not made public – the accuracy of paraphrasing/reference to the source documents of Russian memos is unknown. All those qualifications go to the work of “analysis” – what is this document, what does it come, what does it say, what does it depend on, can it be confirmed separately, what is our level of trust in accepting the content as accurate in nominal value, etc.?
John Durham testifies to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, June 20, 2023. (Screenshot/House Judiciary Committee)
Two items that have drawn the most attention, and what the stories of Times focus on are “e-mails” are reportedly written by Leonard Bernardo, dated July 25 and July 27, 2016. Bernardo worked for a George Soros-related entity. His e -mails were hacked and he had communication with Senior Clinton campaign officials.
The attachment has no actual “e -mails”, because you may find them on Bernardo’s computer or the computer of a recipient -they have none of the typical E -mail format. What they seem to be, his “Retyped” versions of the text in the body of e -mails into a Russian language memo, the Russian memo was translated into English, with Durham “the English translation” the English translation in his report “cuts and pastes.
The “e-mail” of 25 July includes the claim that Hillary Clinton has approved a plan that was conceived by a “foreign policy advisor” to “incite Donald Trump” by falsely connecting him to Russia Pres. Putin.
Regarding the Russian Language Memo – we don’t know the date – Durham offers an English translation that includes the following:
“According to data from the headquarters of the Hillary Clinton election campaign, obtained through the US Soros Foundation, Clinton approved a plan on July 26, 2016 from her policy adviser Juliana Smith … to spread Donald Trump by increasing the scandal associated with the infringement in the pre-publication process”
American Lawyer and former FBI director James Comey bears witness to the Senate Committee, Washington DC, 8 June 2017. (Photo by Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images) Washington, DC – July 13: Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan Specials Specials The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face Specialie Speciales The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face The Face Specialie Specialization Braakinstituut in Washington, DC. Brennan said that although “improved interrogation techniques” that were used after the attacks of 9/11 revealed usable intelligence, he would not lead the CIA if a new president would be used again. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty images) (Getty Images)
The Russian memo then says “as suggested by Smith….” This suggests that perhaps one of the documents supporting the memo is a description of Smith’s plan, either by Smith himself or someone else who is known enough with the details to describe it.
“As Smith had suggested, increasing the theme of ‘Putin’s support for Trump’ to the level of the Olympic scandal would derive the attention of voters from the research into the compromised electronic correspondence of Clinton.”
The Russian memo, who had to be written after July 27, because it had content of an e -mail of July 27, describes exactly what followed in the next 100 days prior to the elections – establishing “Putin’s support for Trump” was the purpose of the supposed “plan”.
The Russian memo continues:
“… by then sending public opinion to the idea that it [the public] must equal ‘Putin’s efforts’ to influence political processes in the United States through Cyberspace to act against a critical important infrastructure (which looks like a National Power Supply network) would force the White House to force the White House [read “OBAMA”] To use more confrontational scenarios compared to Moscow…. ”
The Memo says that the Clinton campaign will try to blow up the meaning of the Russian election interference – which takes place in each election – by drawing it to an attack on vital national infrastructure, and Putin and Trump together in the effort, ie any election intake by Putin is really a proxy.
FBI’s controversial actions of Trump-Russia predicted with ‘alarming specificity’ by foreign actors: Sources
Whether the Russian intelligence services are clairvoyant and should play the lottery every week, whether they wandered in a series of correspondence between people related to the Clinton campaign that exactly describes the game plan that is being carried out by the campaign, and White House, CIA and FBI on their behalf.
The e -mail of 27 July attributed to Bernardo is also relatively short in terms of what Durham goes out as the literal text from the Russian memo, and it confirms that Clinton has approved “Julia’s idea”.
The authors of the Times wrongly reported that Durham called the two Bernardo -e -mails “fake” -and said they were “made up” by Russian intelligence service. That is why, according to the Times, all controversy about the release of attachments materials was not made relevant by that finding.
But Durham did not conclude that the e -mails were fake. What did he conclude?
The “best rating” of his team was that they were “composites” – part of the text of each was taken from other sources and combined in the text that appeared under the name of Bernardo as an “e -mail”.
It is clear that Bernardo did not write them, that is, they are not ‘authentic’.
But it is also clear that part of the content was accurate – and predicted events that would unfold in the next 100 days.
Durham only reached that conclusion after a long and involved process that was designed to understand both the e -mails and how much of the content of the special intelligence was accurate.
Everything – and I mean everything – Durham did to answer those questions, were things that the FBI chose not to do in or after August 2016.
Durham asked intelligence analysts – FBI and CIA probably – whether the e -mails seemed authentic. Most said they did that. Some noted that Bernardo was in fact a victim of hacking through the Russians, so it would not be surprising if his e -mails were in the hands of the Russians. Some were noted that the Russians could have come up with or change the original information from the source documents.
Just the fact that some analysts found that the e -mails seemed to be authentic should have been sufficient to take the FBI into action. But it did nothing.
Durham interviewed Bernardo and showed him the e -mails. The FBI never did that. Bernardo said he did not recognize them, and there was language in those he would not have used – especially the sentence “Later the FBI will put more oil in the fire.”
Assessing intelligence translated from a foreign language is difficult. Bernardo denied the use of that sentence, but how far is that of a very similar sense that is used more often by a native English speaker – “Pouring gas on the fire”? Bernardo’s original document would have been in English – then translated into Russian – and then the Russian version back in English. That is how “gas on the fire” ends as “oil in the fire”.
Bernardo also said that he did not know who “Julie” was referred in the E -mail of July 25.
But he noted that the last sentence in the e-mail of July 25-that “things are horrible to Ons-Russian relationships” was formulated as something he would write.
Durham collected documents with Grand Jury -Sat ons and Search Common. He searched for the documents obtained by Russian hackers. Regarding the e -mails of July 25 and July 27, Durham did not find those under the e -mails of the Soros Foundation.
But he found other e -mails -e -mails or attachments to e -mails sent by people other than Bernardo -with language that is identical to Bernardo. In particular, a passage in the E -mail of 25 July was directly taken from an e -mail written by Tim Mauer, who worked as a cyber expert for the Carnegie Endowment. Mauer had never seen the Bernardo -e -mails, but agreed that one passage was derived from an e -mail he had sent to colleagues in Carnegie -also hacked by the Russians.
Durham also interviewed Julianne Smith, a Clinton campaign adviser of foreign policy, and who attempts to strengthen the threat of the Putin-Trump relationship with American national security.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
It is remarkable that Durham starts this part as follows:
“Smith stated that she did not specifically remember that she introduced a plan to Clinton or other campaign leadership to try to bind Trump to Putin and Russia.”
That phrasing is never coincidental – “did not remember specifically” leaves a lot of room to free itself when a document later arises that says what you claim that you do not remember. Agents are trained to notice such sentences exactly as stated by the person interviewed.
Smith said “it was possible” that she had presented ideas to campaign leadership “that may have approved those ideas.” Again -Durham shows her e -mails about a “clinton plan” that she supposedly came out, and she cannot be trust which other documents he could have that he does not show her.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Although she did not remember anything about something, the only thing she was sure was that she would never have made a proposal that, as part of its implementation, had the involvement of the FBI in promoting the effort.
Prior to Durham, the FBI did not do all of this – and never explained why.
That was the point of Durham’s attachment.
Click here for more from William Shipley
