John Durham Investigation Ends

[SunsetBengal]

Wow, the WSJ editorial board with a scathing op-ed on how MSM is trying to portray the Durham report as no big deal.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wsj-editorial-board-slams-fbi-dupes-in-press-over-durham-report-travesty-that-shouldn-t-be-forgotten/ar-AA1bjEOc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=845a9002c6384dda886c408f09802090&ei=17

Quote:The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board condemned the FBI and its media allies for pushing the Russia collusion narrative against former President Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign and the years following his election.

After consulting Special Counsel John Durham’s final 306-page report on the Russian collusion probe that dropped this week, the board claimed it "makes clear that a partisan FBI became a funnel for disinformation from the Hillary Clinton campaign through a secret investigation the bureau never should have launched."

The board declared that Durham’s report is "a damning account of the corruption of the FBI and its accomplices," and claimed it "gives a fuller picture of the FBI’s complicity under former director James Comey and deputy Andrew McCabe."

FBI OPENED TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE DESPITE PAPADOPOULOS' DENIAL THAT SAID COLLUSION WOULD BE 'TREASON': DURHAM

The editorial, which was published Tuesday, detailed several key takeaways from the Durham report, principally that the Special Counsel found "no basis" for the FBI’s investigation into Trump.

It stated, "The FBI lacked "any actual evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia when it violated its standards and jumped over several steps to initiate a full investigation, including probes into four members of the Trump campaign."

The board then noted how "flimsy" the "pretext for the probe" was, claiming, "The pretext for the probe—a random conversation between unpaid Trump adviser George Papadopoulos and an Australian diplomat—was so flimsy that FBI agents complained it was ‘thin’ and British intelligence was incredulous. The FBI opened the probe without doing interviews, using any ‘standard analytical tools,’ or conducting intelligence reviews."

It noted the report’s finding that if the FBI had done interviews, or conducted reviews, they "would have shown that not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion."

Further, the editorial declared that the report found evidence of "bias" and "partisan hostility" towards Trump for those involved in the probe.

"The Durham report makes clear that partisan hostility played a role in the probe," the board wrote, adding, "The report cites a ‘clear predisposition’ to investigate based on a ‘prejudice against Trump’ and ‘pronounced hostile feelings’ by key investigators, including former agent Peter Strzok, and former FBI attorneys Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith."

DURHAM FINDS DOJ, FBI 'FAILED TO UPHOLD' MISSION OF 'STRICT FIDELITY TO THE LAW' IN TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE

Additionally, the board discussed how the FBI displayed "double standards" by "’tippy-toeing’ around HRC [Clinton]" to avoid interfering with her campaign over concerns that foreign governments were seeking influence over her. Yet they hammered Trump over similar concerns.

"The FBI gave a Clinton representative a ‘defensive briefing’ about the risks of foreign actors. Mr. Trump received no such briefing," the editorial added.

It also laid out "numerous examples of the FBI ignoring evidence that it was being used by the Clinton campaign to execute a political dirty trick."

Even worse, the board noted how former CIA Director John Brennan took the findings that this was a Clinton "dirty trick" and "briefed this material to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Mr. Comey, yet the FBI ignored it."

In addition to this report being an "indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI," the board claimed it is also an indictment of the media. It stated, "The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes."

The editorial added, "Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted. The press performance in the collusion story has done untold damage to its credibility, and it’s a major reason that much of the country believes nothing it reads or hears about Donald Trump."

In conclusion, the Wall Street Journal called the "Russia collusion [a] fabrication and deceptive sale to the public" a "travesty that shouldn’t be forgotten." The piece’s final sentence read, "It will take years for honest public servants to undo the damage, but the Durham accounting is a start."

[*Nately120*]

(05-17-2023, 05:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: 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.

I think Trump is driving the narrative that any investigation into him has to be crooked and politically motivated in the same manner he let everyone know in 2015, 2016, and 2020 that any election he's involved in is rigged against him.  Time will tell, but I just have an inkling that when Trump finally leaves the political world these national agencies aren't going to sharpen their knives and wait to get the next person in line.

I've had this feeling going back to 2016 that Trump supporters want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too where they like Trump because he isn't a wimpy rule-abiding wimp, because nice guys don't get stuff done.  But at the same time anytime he's accused of being that rule breaker that makes him a perceived force to shake up the status quo his supporters have to clutch their pearls and act like Mr. Rodgers is being accused of capital murder, or something. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-17-2023, 05:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wow, the WSJ editorial board with a scathing op-ed on how MSM is trying to portray the Durham report as no big deal.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wsj-editorial-board-slams-fbi-dupes-in-press-over-durham-report-travesty-that-shouldn-t-be-forgotten/ar-AA1bjEOc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=845a9002c6384dda886c408f09802090&ei=17

What if I told you the same person who owns Fox News owns the Wall Street journal?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2023, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What if I told you the same person who owns Fox News owns the Wall Street journal?

I'm not sure that is as important in this particular instance.  WSJ appeals to readers and voters on both sides of the political fence who are interested in money and news.  And if it is even important that both outlets are under the same ownership group, it should speak volumes that the legacy media groups are in complete denial that the Durham report means anything, as the report clearly tells a different story than the broadcast narrative of "Oh, no new indictments".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 05:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think Trump is driving the narrative that any investigation into him has to be crooked and politically motivated in the same manner he let everyone know in 2015, 2016, and 2020 that any election he's involved in is rigged against him.  Time will tell, but I just have an inkling that when Trump finally leaves the political world these national agencies aren't going to sharpen their knives and wait to get the next person in line.

I agree with you.  Consequently, it's a shame that he was just handed a huge amount of information to bolster that claim.

Quote:I've had this feeling going back to 2016 that Trump supporters want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too where they like Trump because he isn't a wimpy rule-abiding wimp, because nice guys don't get stuff done.  But at the same time anytime he's accused of being that rule breaker that makes him a perceived force to shake up the status quo his supporters have to clutch their pearls and act like Mr. Rodgers is being accused of capital murder, or something. 

I think you're on the wrong track here.  I think his supporters like him because he tells uncomfortable truths, or "tells it like it is.", as they see it.  Chappelle touched on this when he mentioned Trump's commenting on his paying little taxes because he used loopholes put in place by Clinton and her ilk to benefit their donors.  The fact that he both admitted to abusing the system, within the rules, and that the rules are skewed for people like him was further proof of what I pointed out above.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2023, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What if I told you the same person who owns Fox News owns the Wall Street journal?

What if I told you that the vast majority of media outlets are owned by a handful of huge conglomerates?  The WSJ is considered a respectable news source, with only their editorial board trending to the right.  They're hardly a Breitbart or a HuffPo.
 

(05-17-2023, 06:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not sure that is as important in this particular instance.  WSJ appeals to readers and voters on both sides of the political fence who are interested in money and news.  And if it is even important that both outlets are under the same ownership group, it should speak volumes that the legacy media groups are in complete denial that the Durham report means anything, as the report clearly tells a different story than the broadcast narrative of "Oh, no new indictments".

Don't lie, you are sure, and you're sure it absolutely does not matter.    As stated above, The WSJ is not a Daily Beast or other partisan hack organization.

[Luvnit2]

(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 ILLEGAL background check.

FIXED IT FOR YOU

[Luvnit2]

(05-17-2023, 07:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:
Which, again, had already been revealed and addressed through the OIG and subsequent reforms.

Funny, but we have some far liberals who still can't comprehend even though numerous investigations including Durham, they refuse to see the facts. Trump nor his team ever colluded with Russian, but even worse the Democratic media with help from the FBI has most Democrats stilling believing Trump should have been investigated and Trump should have been impeached.

The FBI did not have a reason to investigate Trump, but they did it becasue the FBI is corrupt and an enemy to the people at the highest levels, Trump called it out and unlike Biden who can't remember where to stand, Trump was right. Wallace, Maddow and a bunch of Democrats knew it was bogus, but carried out the ruse anyone. That should scare the hell out of anyone our government could without cause go after any citizen.

[Luvnit2]

(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.  

Spot on. Selective memory by liberals. Probably believes the Hunter Biden laptop is RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION. It was confirmed by 51 experts it was 100% before the final 2020 debate.

[Luvnit2]

(05-17-2023, 06:04 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: What if I told you the same person who owns Fox News owns the Wall Street journal?

I would say use your mind and see if the liberal media covers the Durham or covers it lightly. If so, the WSJ report is 100% accurately. The problem is you want a desired outcome versus seeing how it pans out. It is easier to say Fox is biased. They may be, but they reported  liberal media would bury. So far, looks like an accurate report.

[GMDino]

Anyone else getting weird vibes that people on the right now want policing reined in because "they might use their power on anyone" because it happened to a guy who has spent the better part of his life in court?  That now "reasonable suspicion" is a bad thing because they were looking into a guy running for President?

You can try and spin this report any which way but loose but in the end in did nothing other than repeat what was already said in earlier reports.

Did the DOJ overstep with Santos?  Or is it just the cult of Trump that gets OUTRAGED that Trump was investigated over "nothing"?  

[GMDino]

(05-17-2023, 07:48 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I would say use your mind and see if the liberal media covers the Durham or covers it lightly. If so, the WSJ report is 100% accurately. The problem is you want a desired outcome versus seeing how it pans out. It is easier to say Fox is biased. They may be, but they reported  liberal media would bury. So far, looks like an accurate report.

Irony is not only dead it was dug up, the corpse abused and then set fire too and reburied.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2023, 07:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone else getting weird vibes that people on the right now want policing reined in because "they might use their power on anyone" because it happened to a guy who has spent the better part of his life in court?  That now "reasonable suspicion" is a bad thing because they were looking into a guy running for President?

You can try and spin this report any which way but loose but in the end in did nothing other than repeat what was already said in earlier reports.

Did the DOJ overstep with Santos?  Or is it just the cult of Trump that gets OUTRAGED that Trump was investigated over "nothing"?  

I think that you're reaching with the "reasonable suspicion" thing, but anyway.

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.

and

Quote: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..

What we had was a highly respected, esteemed and supposedly of the highest integrity agency of the United States showing favoritism and bias toward a preferred candidate while at the same time showing reckless indifference toward another candidate that members of that agency were found to have personal bias against.  Wanna restate where the outrage should be, once more?

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(05-17-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Both the DOJ IG and Durham both said there was reason to investigate Trump with the FISA court and criminally charge others; however, he thinks probably could have been done in a better way.  Again, that's Durham's opinion and he has his own bias like it or not. Both reports conclude there was a reason for the investigations.  

There was also a footnote in Durham's report that exonerated Hillary, why isn't anyone on the right talking about that? 

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2023, 08:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What we had was a highly respected, esteemed and supposedly of the highest integrity agency of the United States showing favoritism and bias toward a preferred candidate while at the same time showing reckless indifference toward another candidate that members of that agency were found to have personal bias against.  Wanna restate where the outrage should be, once more?

Progressives that have been dealing with unfair targeting by the feds for decades be like

[SunsetBengal]

(05-17-2023, 09:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Progressives that have been dealing with unfair targeting by the feds for decades be like

Did you just use 'whataboutism' with me??

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 12:59 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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. 

No one has to "sift through" any post he doesn't want to read.

Sure, I shouldn't have said you "introduced" the media literacy topic--that was a framing error for sure, given that may main point was that you introduced a crude distinction between "fact" and "opinion" in reporting,

--not a "side track" given that understanding how "opinion" is built into the selection of facts is important to evaluation of gov. reports and political reporting, along side other contextual factors--and should be important to voters as well. How people regard that fact/opinion distinction may well explain why responses to the Durham Report break different ways, some accepting it at face value while others are more critical and contextual.

If my "word salad" has inclined at least two forum readers to see how politicians and propagandists might welcome readers who trust that facts can come before "opinions" in gov. reports, then I've done about as well as I could here. 

THAT is what I am "doubling down on," and what you want to put behind you as quickly as possible,

to "get back on topic" and away from "spin."  

[Dill]

(05-17-2023, 09:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Did you just use 'whataboutism' with me??

Not speaking for Bels, but on my assumption about what he was referencing.

The FBI has long been questioned for its handling of leftist and civil rights protestors in the U.S., as well as foreign "terrorists," especially of the Muslim variety. 

It's possible that the carelessness now apparent in parts of the Trump campaign investigation are bringing to light a laxity which was always there in the FBI, but not revealed in depth until a party in power had the power to protect its own by investigating the investigators (with similar laxity).

From 2014 onward the FBI was apparently VERY concerned about the possible consequences to their organization of investigating presidential candidates who could become president, but in the case of the 2016 election were presented with an unprecedented set  of red flags which pushed the limits of existing guidance. Would you agree with that? 

[*pally*]

(05-17-2023, 06:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not sure that is as important in this particular instance.  WSJ appeals to readers and voters on both sides of the political fence who are interested in money and news.  And if it is even important that both outlets are under the same ownership group, it should speak volumes that the legacy media groups are in complete denial that the Durham report means anything, as the report clearly tells a different story than the broadcast narrative of "Oh, no new indictments".

The WSJ NEWS pages are relatively down the middle.  However, their EDITORIAL pages are extremely conservative.  The posted article was an opinion nothing more nothing less.  

[GMDino]

(05-18-2023, 01:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Not speaking for Bels, but on my assumption about what he was referencing.

The FBI has long been questioned for its handling of leftist and civil rights protestors in the U.S., as well as foreign "terrorists," especially of the Muslim variety. 

It's possible that the carelessness now apparent in parts of the Trump campaign investigation are bringing to light a laxity which was always there in the FBI,
but not revealed in depth until a party in power had the power to protect its own by investigating the investigators (with similar laxity).

From 2014 onward the FBI was apparently VERY concerned about the possible consequences to their organization of investigating presidential candidates who could become president, but in the case of the 2016 election were presented with an unprecedented set  of red flags which pushed the limits of existing guidance. Would you agree with that? 

Aye.  But, for example, when they say white supremacists/extreme right wingers are the biggest problem in the country suddenly a bunch of people who say they are NOT white supremacists have a problem with what the FBI and DOJ does.  Strange.

NOW they want to defund the agency/police.  Odd.