Durham Probe

Pretty much.

I am shocked the OP wasnt the first one in here to share the outcome of this investigation that he cared deeply about.

He’s still looking at hunter Bidens laptop.

Oh no.

1 Like

Oops

Original NYT Article

1 Like

Durham report came out. Following new charges were filed:

That brings total criminal charges resulting from Durham’s investigations up to 2 acquittals, and 1 misdemeanor conviction.

1 Like

This is another good reason for the OP to take this week off.

3 Likes

The Fox News spin is taking a victory lap, so the OP might be sad being off this week.

1 Like

Checking the (radical left, marxist, fake) news, it sounds like it was highly critical of the FBI for blindly accepting the Steele Dossier. So win for Trump.

Of course, now that Trump is a traitor, it’s sort of moot.

But a win for Fox Viewers, anyway.

This is an interesting take based on a holistic view of the Durham probe.
Someone given full access to find any wrong dealing with trump-russia investigation, only produced a difference of opinion and no actual facts or evidence of any wrong doing.

But, CNN has been courting Trump’s base of late, so i would not be surprised if they presented the information similarly as Fox

1 Like

If you want to doubt the news, then find a more reputable spurce or read the report yourself.

Don’t go crazy in the way that conservatives have by vaguely saying that it’s all biased.

Oh, i am saying that Durham is bias.
His investigation ended in an opinion that justified his inititial appointment.
His findings of facts were non existent.
He just restated the opinion that Trump appointed him with.

2 Likes

Ahh, yeah, fair enough.

I’m open to the idea that perhaps those of us who really do not like trump are not sensitive enough to how easily (maybe) his campaign was investigated by the fbi.

the guy is such a criminal that i have trouble being convinced. but i am open to it.

Kinda weird how the guy that was so unfairly treated by the FBI investigating his potentially treasonous activities happened to lead an insurrection just a few years later.

2 Likes

(If I’m forgetting any significant malfeasance in this, excoriate me.)

Is there anything wrong with being investigated given seemingly credible allegations of crime? I figured the bureau of Investigation would do such a thing.

I don’t mean to say the government should be weaponized against undesirables, but perhaps a Presidential candidate with a significantly sketchy history and active accusations of crime should be Investigated.

Similarly I wouldn’t care if a Democratic candidate with accusations of crime was investigated. I might think that Hillary Clinton hasn’t actually suicided a few dozen people, but if there’s some evidence, tug the thread.

1 Like

One things that I haven’t seen well explored in the (small number) of articles I’ve read is that Durham apparently concluded that a preliminary investigation was appropriate, but not a full investigation. The 2019 IG report, on the other hand, found that opening the investigation was appropriate.

I’m not clear on the distinction between a preliminary investigation and a full investigation and haven’t seen a good explanation. Given the large number of convictions that came out of the Mueller probe, I assume that a preliminary investigation would have uncovered enough evidence to warrant a full investigation so I don’t even understand why a distinction would matter (other than to score political points).

1 Like

It feels like the conclusion of the full investigation is being used to justify it’s own existence - was there enough of a conclusion from the preliminary investigation to say that Trump was not coordinating with Russia in any way?

I don’t think we really knew much about either at the time of the 2016 election, so it did not influence the election unlike the last minute Clinton email announcement. Everything was wrapped up before 2020. Trump’s public statements did more to undermine his own credibility than anything the justice department was investigating.

This is an interesting parallel, since without the Clinton/Comey announcement there is a very serious possibility she would have won, whereas this investigation ended up with little outcome except, what was it, 2 acquittals and a misdemeanor?

I recall likely Clinton voters even in my family and the office discussing the investigation announcement just prior and being uncertain whether to vote.

Like you, I think: a criminal got investigated for a crime. What’s the story? But I do think it’s the details that matter. The correct processes need to be followed, especially when investigating a presidential candidate. This is where the allegations that, say, the steele dossier was improperly used, do matter. And it has to have been used in a way that would have been proper for any other candidate, too.

My gut is that the fbi looked at trump, saw a criminal who would work with russia if it made him an extra buck, and feared for the country and the rule of law. That’s what we want.

But did that also make them push boundaries in ways that they shouldn’t have? Well, that has a plausibility for me too.

I mean there is an arguable slippery slope to “wrong-think” type behavior.

But I wouldn’t mind every serious Presidential candidate being closely investigated if there’s a whiff of them being criminals.

But to be honest, I’ve lost the thread by now. It’s so wishy-washy and nothing happened.