John Durham Investigation Ends

[Dill]

(05-16-2023, 10:13 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: A news story would report and present the facts to you so that you could make up your mind. A news piece would write "A special prosecutor found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of ties between Russian and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence as he concluded a four year probe" since those words are literally in the report. 

Do "facts" select themselves for the news or must reporters and editors do that selecting? 

CRITICAL media literacy begins with the answer to that question.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-16-2023, 07:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're massively downplaying the significance of this.  Criminal charges are not required for this to be an egregious abuse of federal law enforcement power.  Like I said earlier, if they'll pull this kind of crap with a powerful person like Trump just imagine what they're comfortable with doing to the average citizen.  Trump got impeached over this and it turned out to be complete garbage.  That doesn't disturb you?  Sincerely, the level of partisanship that enables excusing this is horrifying.

IMO a narcissistic reality tv show host serial sexual assaulter lying conman outsider with numerous bankruptcies winning the most powerful political office in the country and bringing in an entourage of people who have no security clearance, that should probably get a little bit of a look. Right?

Background check for me getting a job. Yep. So if you are a poor horrified citizen worried they will get you like they got trump. Don't worry. You will be fine. The average citizen has nothing to worry about.

However. If you are a scumbag, and one day become POTUS. Beware, because they are going to do a really deep background check.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-17-2023, 01:48 AM)Dill Wrote: ??? And those five bullet points disprove that the Durham and Barr were looking for prosecutable, criminal activity?  

                                                                   
                                                                       

You frame this as if those bullet points refute their own claim that "the Office structured its work around evidence for possible
use in prosecutions of federal crimes" rather than complete it with more specification of where they are looking.

And they did find criminal activity--one guy who fudged a final FISA application by adding information which had been in
two previous ones.   But it sounds like you are hearing this 2019 news for the first time. 

WTF indeed.
I failed to understand the context of your post in relation to what was quoted. 
Carry on....

(05-17-2023, 02:03 AM)Dill Wrote: Do "facts" select themselves for the news or must reporters and editors do that selecting? 

CRITICAL media literacy begins with the answer to that question.

It is really simple, write about what is in the report without injecting your opinion. There's no need to overthink it. 
I am not going down your rabbit-hole of endless and tiresome word salad posts of over analyzations that wear you out and grind the convesation to a halt. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-16-2023, 11:47 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Anyway....we are off on a tangent here. The findings in this report aren't "a whimper." They are significant and concerning. I really couldn't care less if it lived up to Trumps hyperbole or not. I really couldn't care less if it vindicates Trump or not. Frankly, to me, this isn't about Trump. It's about the corruption and incompetence in the DOJ and FBI.

Which, again, had already been revealed and addressed through the OIG and subsequent reforms.

[GMDino]

(05-17-2023, 03:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: IMO a narcissistic reality tv show host serial sexual assaulter lying conman outsider with numerous bankruptcies winning the most powerful political office in the country and bringing in an entourage of people who have no security clearance, that should probably get a little bit of a look. Right?

Background check for me getting a job. Yep. So if you are a poor horrified citizen worried they will get you like they got trump. Don't worry. You will be fine. The average citizen has nothing to worry about.

However. If you are a scumbag, and one day become POTUS. Beware, because they are going to do a really deep background check.

This is something I've said since Don ran for office.  He made the mistake of allowing the spotlight to be turned on him in a way he couldn't control when he was just a litigious, borderline racist, owner of a construction company.  Much like he couldn't work within the structure of our government systems he couldn't stop those systems from catching all of the things he did.

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 06:54 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: It is really simple, write about what is in the report without injecting your opinion. There's no need to overthink it. 
I am not going down your rabbit-hole of endless and tiresome word salad posts of over analyzations that wear you out and grind the convesation to a halt. 

Writing "what is in the report without interjecting your opinion" is exactly what politicians want reporters to do:

                                                                                 Take dictation.

They don't want ANYONE to "overthink it," especially reporters tasked with keeping them honest; in this case, reporters who remember what
was in the 2019 IG report, and who remember why Durham was assigned his investigation in the first place.

You're the guy who introduced the issue of "media literacy" into this thread on the back of your spurious distinction between"facts" and "opinions" introduced after the fact, which masks your selection of what and what not to "overthink."   

The last time we clashed was over your reliance on Youtube videos to help you understand Barr's interception of the Mueller Report.
So yes, you don't want to go down the "rabbit hole" of reconstructing time lines and analytic distinctions between primary and secondary
sources. Hard to follow. "Russia hoax Russia hoax" is easier. Accept the Report without "overthinking," but not the reporting.

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-17-2023, 10:45 AM)Dill Wrote: You're the guy who introduced the issue of "media literacy" into this thread on the back of your spurious distinction between"facts" and "opinions" introduced after the fact

Fail. That wasn't me. Try again. 

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 03:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: IMO a narcissistic reality tv show host serial sexual assaulter lying conman outsider with numerous bankruptcies winning the most powerful political office in the country and bringing in an entourage of people who have no security clearance, that should probably get a little bit of a look. Right?

Background check for me getting a job. Yep. So if you are a poor horrified citizen worried they will get you like they got trump. Don't worry. You will be fine. The average citizen has nothing to worry about.

However. If you are a scumbag, and one day become POTUS. Beware, because they are going to do a really deep background check.

He wasn't just bringing in people with no security clearance. 

His own people were working to make contact with Russians--including his campaign manager and son--at a moment the Russians are working actively to throw the election to Trump. Yeah. That should get a bit of a look. 

And "average citizens" do "get a bit of a look" if they turn up repeatedly in surveilled contacts with Russian spies, and if our allies give us a heads up about them. They should. The "Russia hoax" and "Deep state" narratives are just efforts by the party of personal responsibility to disconnect Trump's own behavior from the consequences everyone else faces for such behavior. As if all this surveillance of Trump campaign misbehavior just came out of nowhere, its only possible motivation being anti-Trump "bias." So "it could happen to anyone!"--i.e., anyone seeking contact with Russian spies coordinating Wikileak dumps during an election.

Especially rich is the Faux Outrage at Fox and Newmax over the Trump bias revealed in certain FBI agents private emails, since star Fox commentators were saying the same thing in their private emails: Trump is a disaster and a threat they wish would go away. Is Tucker part of the deep state? 

LOL do they "hate" Trump too?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-16-2023, 07:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're massively downplaying the significance of this.  Criminal charges are not required for this to be an egregious abuse of federal law enforcement power.  Like I said earlier, if they'll pull this kind of crap with a powerful person like Trump just imagine what they're comfortable with doing to the average citizen.  Trump got impeached over this and it turned out to be complete garbage.  That doesn't disturb you?  Sincerely, the level of partisanship that enables excusing this is horrifying.

This was a big nothing burger, and nothing more. Durham's report makes no criminal charges against anyone. Durham's two attempts to bring charges during the investigation both resulted in acquittals. His report doesn't find any objective wrong in any of the actions by the DoJ or FBI, but instead offers subjective ways that he feels, IN HIS OPINION, things should have been handled differently - all while evading the fact that regardless of why the investigation began (the Steele Dossier) the Russia probe DID, in fact, produce multiple arrests, reveal multiple crimes, and ultimately did not rely on the Steele Dossier as anything more than a tip.


Durham complains that they should have known the Dossier was flawed and not investigated based on it. But, the truth is, there was no way to know it was flawed without investigating it, and those investigations bore fruit that led to many convictions.


In fact, the only reason why it didn't lead to Obstruction of Justice charges on Donald Trump was b/c Donald Trump's corrupt AG, Bill Barr, wouldn't go that far and cited a DOJ memo that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted.  In 2019, there was a DOJ IG report that corroborated the involvement with the Russian government. Read the DOJ IG's report. The IG’s job is only to review all actions taken during the investigation and verify DOJ policies were followed. Very importantly for keeping bias out of IG reports, the reports are not about judging the decisions made, but solely whether DOJ decision guidelines were followed.  Durham appears to be at odds with it, but that is just his OPINION that appears to be the only thing that's partisan. So nice try but the facts remain there was reason to investigate and impeach Trump, charge him with obstruction, and convict Manafort, Flynn, and Stone.

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 11:03 AM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Fail. That wasn't me. Try again. 

Bels faulted you for lack of media literacy, 

but you (post #33) are the one who based it on the naive distinction between "facts" and "opinions," 

"opinions" being where we find "bias," which supposedly gets interjected into Durham statements which are apparently just facts.

That was you.

Reporters who can't help noting that Durham is doing in his own investigation what he faults the FBI for (insufficient predication),
and didn't find the deep state conspiracy which motivated his (and Barr's) investigation of the investigators, plus their
unexplained surveillance of Soros and burying an Italian government tip about Trump financial chicanery--

for you those guys are doing it wrong. 

Let the average reader who doesn't have that backstory, doesn't know what WASN'T in the Report, make up his own mind. 

What Durham concludes is "fact" and when reporters raise questions of omission and consistency that's "opinion." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 11:41 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: This was a big nothing burger, and nothing more. Durham's report makes no criminal charges against anyone. Durham's two attempts to bring charges during the investigation both resulted in acquittals. His report doesn't find any objective wrong in any of the actions by the DoJ or FBI, but instead offers subjective ways that he feels, IN HIS OPINION, things should have been handled differently - all while evading the fact that regardless of why the investigation began (the Steele Dossier) the Russia probe DID, in fact, produce multiple arrests, reveal multiple crimes, and ultimately did not rely on the Steele Dossier as anything more than a tip.


Durham complains that they should have known the Dossier was flawed and not investigated based on it. But, the truth is, there was no way to know it was flawed without investigating it, and those investigations bore fruit that led to many convictions.


In fact, the only reason why it didn't lead to Obstruction of Justice charges on Donald Trump was b/c Donald Trump's corrupt AG, Bill Barr, wouldn't go that far and cited a DOJ memo that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted.  In 2019, there was a DOJ IG report that corroborated the involvement with the Russian government. Read the DOJ IG's report. The IG’s job is only to review all actions taken during the investigation and verify DOJ policies were followed. Very importantly for keeping bias out of IG reports, the reports are not about judging the decisions made, but solely whether DOJ decision guidelines were followed.  Durham appears to be at odds with it, but that is just his OPINION that appears to be the only thing that's partisan. So nice try but the facts remain there was reason to investigate and impeach Trump, charge him with obstruction, and convict Manafort, Flynn, and Stone.

This is a lot of words to say you're ignoring the results of the Durham probe because it doesn't jive with your political leanings.  

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 11:41 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: This was a big nothing burger, and nothing more. Durham's report makes no criminal charges against anyone. Durham's two attempts to bring charges during the investigation both resulted in acquittals. His report doesn't find any objective wrong in any of the actions by the DoJ or FBI, but instead offers subjective ways that he feels, IN HIS OPINION, things should have been handled differently - all while evading the fact that regardless of why the investigation began (the Steele Dossier) the Russia probe DID, in fact, produce multiple arrests, reveal multiple crimes, and ultimately did not rely on the Steele Dossier as anything more than a tip.

Durham complains that they should have known the Dossier was flawed and not investigated based on it. But, the truth is, there was no way to know it was flawed without investigating it, and those investigations bore fruit that led to many convictions.

In fact, the only reason why it didn't lead to Obstruction of Justice charges on Donald Trump was b/c Donald Trump's corrupt AG, Bill Barr, wouldn't go that far and cited a DOJ memo that a sitting president cannot be criminally indicted.  In 2019, there was a DOJ IG report that corroborated the involvement with the Russian government. Read the DOJ IG's report. The IG’s job is only to review all actions taken during the investigation and verify DOJ policies were followed. Very importantly for keeping bias out of IG reports, the reports are not about judging the decisions made, but solely whether DOJ decision guidelines were followed.  Durham appears to be at odds with it, but that is just his OPINION that appears to be the only thing that's partisan. So nice try but the facts remain there was reason to investigate and impeach Trump, charge him with obstruction, and convict Manafort, Flynn, and Stone.

Well said, especially the bolded. Barr defused Mueller's refusal to exonerate Trump and exploited the DOJ guidance on NOT indicting sitting presidents.

Now THAT'S how you weaponize the DOJ.  But here were are stamping out another faux fire about Dems "weaponizing government!!" 

Durham did get one indictment though--Clinesmith for patching into an email for the fourth FISA request on Carter Page info which had been in
two previous requests. 

I am learning some new stuff from the report. I had no idea that Strzok wrote two rebuttals for NYT articles claiming the FBI had source info
that it didn't--but Strzok was supposed to be their prime exhibit for the deep state anti-Trump conspiracy.  

Also, what you are calling Durham's "opinion"--he is making inferences about his "findings" based on a set of facts from which FBI agents, based on their experience and knowledge of in-house rules, made different conclusions. You are right that his judgment needs to be evaluated too, along with the
report. That should always be the case. 

Finally, you hit on another theme I am finding in RW responses to this report, especially on Newsmax and Fox--

they argue as if the FBI is wrong to investigate whether wrongdoing has occurred unless they know for sure ahead of time that it has. 


But that may be

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-17-2023, 12:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Bels faulted you for lack of media literacy, 

but you (post #33) are the one who based it on the naive distinction between "facts" and "opinions," 

"opinions" being where we find "bias," which supposedly gets interjected into Durham statements which are apparently just facts.

That was you.

Reporters who can't help noting that Durham is doing in his own investigation what he faults the FBI for (insufficient predication),
and didn't find the deep state conspiracy which motivated his (and Barr's) investigation of the investigators, plus their
unexplained surveillance of Soros and burying an Italian government tip about Trump financial chicanery--

for you those guys are doing it wrong. 

Let the average reader who doesn't have that backstory, doesn't know what WASN'T in the Report, make up his own mind. 

What Durham concludes is "fact" and when reporters raise questions of omission and consistency that's "opinion." 

Double fail. 

Unless you don't know the definition of the word "introduced."

Telling that you'd double down when you're wrong. I was wrong an admitted as much in an earlier post. You should try it. Everyone should try it. Im convinced half of the problems with modern discourse are peoples inability to admit being wrong. And worse, rather than do so they try to spin and redefine in an effort to make themselves right...which only makes them more wrong. 

Anyhoo...You've predictably continued to sidetrack and derail the thread with more word salads about something that was never intended when the thread was started. Arguing about facts and opinions is not what it is about. Bels and I got sidetracked, both said what we had to say, and moved on so that the thread could resume without others having to sift through off-topic posts. Kudos to both of us. 

[SunsetBengal]

In my opinion the Durham report was not the 'atom bomb' that some were hoping for, but it's far from the 'nothingburger' that so many pundits and electorate on the Left are attempting to write it off as. In fact, from some of the quoted passages from the Durham report in this article, I'd say that it goes far to confirm what many on the Right have been suspecting for years; The FBI turned a blind eye to the Clinton Campaign's made up attempt to frame and sabotage the Trump campaign, leading up to the 2016 election and much of his presidency.

The abuse of power and dereliction of duty by the FBI is no small thing that should be excused, simply because Donald Trump has a decidedly bad character. Many on the Left are absolutely fine with the actions of these so-called government servants. I wonder how they will feel when the day comes that the shoe is on the other foot? It's already happening in some states, like right here in Ohio. The Republican held State Legislature has moved to make it a 60% majority to get previously enacted legislation reversed, when it was (and should have remained 50% +1).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-ignored-alleged-clinton-campaign-election-meddling-plan-after-cia-briefed-obama-and-biden-durham-report-says/ar-AA1bhmlM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6a0d032b25b149e38c49ce0020e03989&ei=365

Quote:The FBI didn’t open any inquiry into an alleged Hillary Clinton campaign election interference plan even after the CIA director briefed then-president Barack Obama and other senior administration officials, Special Counsel John Durham’s report noted.

The FBI received Russian intelligence analysis in July 2016 alleging that Clinton’s campaign cooked up a scheme to divert attention away from “her use of a private email server,” the Durham report stated.

The alleged scheme, dubbed the “Clinton Plan,” showed that the Clinton campaign “had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal” against Trump “by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee,” the Durham report reads.

The intelligence community didn’t know the accuracy of the Russian intelligence, but the findings were notable enough for then-CIA Director John Brennan to inform the Obama administration “within days” of learning about it.

Brennan briefed President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey about the Clinton campaign’s plan, the Durham report says.

The findings also prompted the CIA to send “a formal written referral memorandum” to Comey and “the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBl’s Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, for their consideration and action.”

In contrast to the speed at which the FBI opened a full investigation into Trump “on raw, uncorroborated information,” the FBI “never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with the information,” Durham wrote.

Durham’s findings, published Monday, discredited the FBI’s approach to how it handled its investigation into Trump’s alleged contact with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

Attorney General Bill Barr appointed Durham in 2019 to investigate the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s investigation into Trump.

Durham concluded that Crossfire Hurricane “reflected a noticeable departure” for how the bureau handled cases to Clinton, and said the FBI began their investigation of Trump without appearing “to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement.”

He also found that the FBI had a “predisposition to investigate Trump,” and did not move with “considerable caution,” as it did with cases related to Clinton..

The FBI responded to the findings of the Durham report, saying the bureau underwent reforms after the launch of Crossfire Hurricane.

“The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time,” the FBI said in a statement.

“Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented. This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 01:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In my opinion the Durham report was not the 'atom bomb' that some were hoping for, but it's far from the 'nothingburger' that so many pundits and electorate on the Left are attempting to write it off as.  In fact, from some of the quoted passages from the Durham report in this article, I'd say that it goes far to confirm what many on the Right have been suspecting for years; The FBI turned a blind eye to the Clinton Campaign's made up attempt to frame and sabotage the Trump campaign, leading up to the 2016 election and much of his presidency.

The abuse of power and dereliction of duty by the FBI is no small thing that should be excused, simply because Donald Trump has a decidedly bad character.  Many on the Left are absolutely fine with the actions of these so-called government servants.  I wonder how they will feel when the day comes that the shoe is on the other foot?  It's already happening in some states, like right here in Ohio.  The Republican held State Legislature has moved to make it a 60% majority to get previously enacted legislation reversed, when it was (and should have remained 50% +1).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-ignored-alleged-clinton-campaign-election-meddling-plan-after-cia-briefed-obama-and-biden-durham-report-says/ar-AA1bhmlM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6a0d032b25b149e38c49ce0020e03989&ei=365

It is fascinating to watch.  As I said in my first response to this thread, there's absolutely no way this investigation starts, and continues, without constant and consistent approval from those at the highest levels of the bureau.  I've worked high profile cases, one of them a murder that I guarantee many of you read about.  Even that was nothing compared to investigating a POTUS candidate and later POTUS.  Higher ups want constant updates regarding progress.  As the Durham report specifically stated, 

It criticized the FBI for opening a full-fledged investigation based on “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence,” saying the speed at which it did so was a departure from the norm. And it said investigators repeatedly relied on “confirmation bias,” ignoring or rationalizing away evidence that undercut their premise of a Trump-Russia conspiracy as they pushed the probe forward.


The most damning part of that is the ignoring or rationalizing away exculpatory evidence.  This is beyond the pale behavior from an LEO, again most especially in such a high profile case.  This means that not only did investigating agents ignore such evidence, but those at the highest level of the bureau did as well.  When conducting an investigation you don't start with a conclusion and then try and find evidence that corroborates it.  You go where the evidence takes you, drawing conclusions from said evidence as you go.  There are small exceptions in this regard, such as looking at a murder victim's spouse as a likely suspect as this is so often the case, but once evidence indicates otherwise you abandon such suppositions.  

As previously stated, this is either an indication of a massive bias in the FBI, evidence of gross incompetence or a combination of both.  Given the strict hiring practices of the FBI I'm going to have to go with option one as being the most likely.  However, if evidence shows otherwise I will happily reexamine my position.  As stated, this should frighten everyone.  If they're willing to do this to one of the most powerful men in the world, what do you think they'd be willing to do to the average citizen?  But for some it's OK, because Trump is a big meanie who says awful things about people.  

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-17-2023, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a lot of words to say you're ignoring the results of the Durham probe because it doesn't jive with your political leanings.  

Durham had to come up with something here b/c everything else was a dud and he needed to justify his paycheck.  Anyway, Much of the information disclosed in Durham's report was revealed in a 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department inspector general into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau. 

You need to read the full 2019 IGs report.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 01:41 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Durham had to come up with something here b/c everything else was a dud and he needed to justify his paycheck.  Anyway, Much of the information disclosed in Durham's report was revealed in a 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department inspector general into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau. 

You need to read the full 2019 IGs report.

Does that preclude other forms of bias?  If so then I guess our conclusion has to be the that FBI is monstrously incompetent.  Not really seeing an option that isn't intensely disconcerting.

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2023, 01:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In my opinion the Durham report was not the 'atom bomb' that some were hoping for, but it's far from the 'nothingburger' that so many pundits and electorate on the Left are attempting to write it off as. In fact, from some of the quoted passages from the Durham report in this article, I'd say that it goes far to confirm what many on the Right have been suspecting for years; The FBI turned a blind eye to the Clinton Campaign's made up attempt to frame and sabotage the Trump campaign, leading up to the 2016 election and much of his presidency.

The abuse of power and dereliction of duty by the FBI is no small thing that should be excused, simply because Donald Trump has a decidedly bad character. Many on the Left are absolutely fine with the actions of these so-called government servants. I wonder how they will feel when the day comes that the shoe is on the other foot? It's already happening in some states, like right here in Ohio. The Republican held State Legislature has moved to make it a 60% majority to get previously enacted legislation reversed, when it was (and should have remained 50% +1).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-ignored-alleged-clinton-campaign-election-meddling-plan-after-cia-briefed-obama-and-biden-durham-report-says/ar-AA1bhmlM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6a0d032b25b149e38c49ce0020e03989&ei=365

I am all for shortening the leash on law enforcement and am quite pleased we are seeing folks on the right finally getting on board with that, I just don't understand how so much hay is being made about a report that pretty much just reiterates the OIG findings and where the issues have already been resolved. That, combined with people trying to say this "exonerates Trump" when it does nothing of the sort really baffles me.

[*Nately120*]

(05-17-2023, 02:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am all for shortening the leash on law enforcement and am quite pleased we are seeing folks on the right finally getting on board with that, I just don't understand how so much hay is being made about a report that pretty much just reiterates the OIG findings and where the issues have already been resolved. That, combined with people trying to say this "exonerates Trump" when it does nothing of the sort really baffles me.

Trump's fanbase has spent the past year or so declaring that Trump being found with classified documents, being indicted for business fraud, and being found liable for sexual abuse were all reasons to celebrate and support him even further, so we can't expect them to not declare victory in this situation.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2023, 03:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump's fanbase has spent the past year or so declaring that Trump being found with classified documents, being indicted for business fraud, and being found liable for sexual abuse were all reasons to celebrate and support him even further, so we can't expect them to not declare victory in this situation.

Meh, it's not so much about Trump specifically, as it is about national agencies that were long thought of in the highest of esteem and integrity acting poorly and biased.