A special prosecutor found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence as he concluded a four-year probe that fell far short of the former president’s prediction that the “crime of the century” would be uncovered.
The report Monday from special counsel John Durham represents the long-awaited culmination of an investigation that Trump and allies had claimed would expose massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials. Instead, Durham’s investigation delivered underwhelming results, with prosecutors securing a guilty plea from a little-known FBI employee but losing the only two criminal cases they took to trial.
Six million dollars to find out that the FBI acted a little too hastily? That seems a bit much. And the point that the FBI had "confirmation bias".. that's news? Law enforcement lives there. Men are being released from prison, time after time, because the cops had target fixation with regard to whom they think is the perpetrator.
Also note that the TOFF's favorite prosecutor managed to secure zero convictions at trial (and one plea deal) for what the Asset called "the crime of the century". That compares to the trials of the January 6th defendants from his "beautifil and perfect rally," which have, so far, been convicted at a 100% rate.
24 comments:
But most of the scorn heaped onto Trump was derived from the foreign interference created for Hillary’s campaign. Will that. E walked back or dropped now?
Trump’s alleged “sucker” and “loser” comment was from an anonymous source and, although denied by people there including John Bolton (a Trump enemy) you still have that on your masthead.
My opinion remains that Biden has done worse and is a terrible President. If the general is Trump vs. Biden again, I will still vote for Trump.
It does not appear that either party will nominate anyone better.
0_0, your opinion is, frankly, unsupported by rational evidence. Biden has not had conversations with dictators that were off the record and with no witnesses, whatsoever. Biden has not tried to make aid for another nation contingent on digging up (or fabricating) dirt on a political opponent. Trump has done both of those things.
Trump's sucking up to Putin is a matter of fact. The motivation for that, well, I have my opinions.
Unsupported by rational evidence? The Durham report puts that exclamation point on the entire Russia/ Trump investigation.
According to evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop supported by witnesses and emails, Joe Biden has done very very similar things but adding different dictators.
Yes. Your contention that Biden is dirtier than Trump is not supported by rational evidence.
You may disagree that Durham found “massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials”, plus the media. But the central point of the Durham Report is that there was no rational evidence with which to open the investigation of Trump, and they knew it before they started.
Swallowing whole every anonymous assertion from the alphabet agencies was anathema to liberals when I was young.
"most of the scorn heaped onto Trump was derived from the foreign interference created for hillary’s campaign"
most of the scorn heaped on tang the conqueror was derived from the fact that he was a fascist bigot who liked to rape people while lying constantly about everything under the sun. MOST of the scorn.
just gonna lay this down here in light of some gaslighters trying to obfuscate recent history:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election
Dear, dear, 0_0, but the “massive wrongdoing by law enforcement and intelligence officials” that Trump trumpeted isn’t substantiated in the report issued by Durham. Using such a quote from TOFF shows your bias, when it is not present in the report that shows, at worst, a lack of rigor.
No, investigations are to investigate. In that investigation, there were multiple indictments and actual prison sentences. The Durham "investigation" found nothing. One plea for making a false statement and two acquittals, with one jury foreperson saying about the trial "I think we could have spent our time more wisely."
I know your propaganda says otherwise, but official transcripts of court proceedings exist.
-Doug in Sugar Pine
Massive wrongdoing", but no convictions and a 100% loss rate at trial.
Compare that to Mueller's results.
Thanks double-ought, I've a rough day, needed a good laugh ...
One of the little reported massive wrong doings is that in the FBI office a few agents were suspected of getting coffee from the "Coffee Club" pot without belonging or paying the quarter. Also on "Doughnut Friday" they might even have swiped a doughnut, without being in the club.
Convictions? The corrupt government agencies colluding with one campaign to defeat another campaign should shock everyone.
Keep your heads in the sand.
My propaganda? My characterizations were informed by Jake Tapper on CNN, the WSJ, and the Durham Report itself.
Conspiracy theories can rot one's brain, 0_0.
You are ignoring the fact that, as the Special Counsel, Durham had the ability to build a case against whomever he saw fit and to try those cases without any interference or input from the Department of Justice. If he found illegality, he was free to charge people for that.
He didn't. He took two cases to trial and lost both of them. All of your deep-state paranoia ignores those truths.
Durham spent four years, millions of dollars, two trials and he produced a huge nothingburger.
And that is the fact of the matter.
TNN double-ought, the Trump News Network: TNN.
The Wall Street Journal is a good source of information, if you stick to the business pages. I thumb through a print copy of it everyday, always find something interesting. Some of the best tech reporting there is, and it's always a pleasure to see a full page photo of a Bell 414, accompanied with like tech some of the best laymen's VTL reporting I've seen.
What is a Jake Tapper? Anything like a Jacob's Engine Compression Brake ... ?
I am aware of the two trials and one plea.
I do not know if the report’s findings include illegal actions. Is it illegal to initiate an investigation and continue it for years when you know there are no facts to support it and, in fact, many of those investigating believe the allegations are false?
But it is definitely wrong.
Are you now talking about the Durham investigation as being the one without the facts to support criminal trials? You can't be talking about the Mueller investigation, as it generated quite a number of convictions.
Durham's investigation is probably the biggest special counsel nothingburger to come out of DC since the Starr investigation.
0_0, so after trumpeting “massive wrongdoing” and suggesting that was a direct quote from the Durham Report…you now admit you don’t know the reports findings at all. Dude, if you want to come to a discussion while ignorant and only equipped with talking po8nts from ONN or TOFF, you’re gonna get your ass handed to you on a regular basis. Step back, and either read the damn thing, and then opine, or don’t try to pass off opinion as fact.
"no facts to support it"
...clearly 0_0 didn't read the mueller report. OBVIOUSLY they didn't read the gop- led SSCI report.
"russia, if you're listening..."
0_0, you might wanna STFU until you HAVE, you goddamn gaslighter.
I am referring to the Durham report. I meant I do not know if initializing an investigation when one knows there is no evidence to damage one candidate’s campaign to benefit another’s is illegal or just wrong.
I can’t post this easily from my phone but this WaPo reporter expresses the issues better than I-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/17/durham-report-trump-russia-collusion-media/
CP88, “massive wrongdoing” is taken from the second paragraph of Comrade’s link excerpt.
DK- Russia already HAD hacked Hillary’s email when Trump made that joke.
And I read Mueller back then. Today, if you do not realize that the FBI was knowingly using bs to justify investigations of US citizens, I can’t help you.
Marc Thiessen isn't a reporter. He's a columnist, he works for the American Enterprise Institute and he was one of Dubya's speechwriters.
I'm not picking nits, here. 0_0. You're portraying him, by implication, as someone who is either to the left or is neutral and Thiessen isn't either of those.
He is a columnist for the Washington Post, whom I linked because the same facts reported by the NY Post or CNN or wherever is rejected before reading based on where it was published.
Thiessen does merit the “columnist” description, but I don’t get how it matters here.
The Russian collusion conspiracy theory has been exposed but many have closed their mind to even the possibility.
good LORD< gaslighter. clinton's emails were NEVER hacked. the server she had set up w/the secret service was NEVER penetrated, unlike those of the state department.
also, REALLY, your lies are SO transparent. there IS this thing called "google".
you should try it sometime.
and yeah, so you READ the mueller report, you SAW all the episodes of obstruction of justice? you DO know that's.... a crime?
the SSCI report showed CONCLUSIVELY that manafort was working for the GRU. put THAT shit in your pipe and smoke it. use your gaslighter.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts
eta-
yeah, gaslighter, i'm WELL aware of the history of the FBI. i know who hoover was.
you DO know, that leftist bureau, that hotbed of liberalism has never, EVER had a democratic DIRECTOR in charge of the agency, RIGHT?
wray was appointed by dolt 45. he's one of YOURS.
Post a Comment