The anti deep state animus existed going back to Hoover, Ruby Ridge and Waco. I haven’t read the whole Durham report but I doubt it covers that. Also many of those criticizing the FBI and Doj now were also cheerleading the FBI when it was investigating Hillary Clinton. In fact there was plenty of reports then about how many in the rank and file of FBI who hated the Clintons. Did Durham address that in his investigation? it’s fairly obvious that the latest round of distrust of the FBI and DOJ has nothing to do with structural problems within it but that they are investigating Trump. Just look at how the cries of “DEFUND THE FBI!” Started after the Mar A Lago raid. Something that wasn’t directly tied to the Russiagate investigation.
It’s very much confirmation bias. That’s why so much of the “evidence” to argue for that the FBI and DOJ are hopeless biased against Trump is based on opinion including this thread. The facts are that even Durham acknowledged that there was good reason to investigate Trump in 2015, that the Steel Dossier wasn’t the foundation for the investigation. Also that the Trump Russia investigation wasn’t conducted publicly during the 2016 election while the Clinton server was. It doesn’t make sense that the same organization was actually trying to hurt Trump’s election chances while publicly investigating his opponent.
the FBI tripped over itself to accommodate Mrs. Clinton (who will never be president), as the Durham report makes clear.
a point made here: All along, the press has been shockingly incompetent and dishonest. I’m not given to categorical predictions, but here’s one: If the New York Times, Washington Post and other top-tier news outlets treated any one of the following stories the way they would have if Donald Trump didn’t exist—the collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop evasion, the Biden clan’s influence-peddling—Mr. Trump would be a fading force in U.S. politics by now. The thing that primarily keeps him afloat is the contemptible behavior of his enemies, including a press that insists on positioning itself as his enemy whatever the damage to its own standards of factual and intellectual honesty. https://www.wsj.com/articles/finall...tions-fbi-c79d74a4?mod=hp_opin_pos_5#cxrecs_s Finally, Can We Ask Who Really Colluded With Russia? If the crime is promoting distrust in institutions, the evidence is strongest against the FBI and media. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. May 26, 2023 at 5:57 pm ET Millions of Americans despise Donald Trump and probably think it was justified or at least good clean fun when the Hillary Clinton campaign manufactured fake evidence of collusion with Russia, and the FBI and other branches of government used this information to trammel his presidency. At least this view, whatever its faults, isn’t stupid. But stop the presses: Now we have a real case of collusion. Since the Ukraine war, Russia’s PR operation has published lists of individuals under meaningless Kremlin sanctions. These lists are scanned by pundits, wonks and politicians to see if they can brag about being unpopular with Vladimir Putin. Last week Russia came out with 500 more names, including some criticized by Donald Trump, like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who certified his 2020 defeat in the state, and the Capitol policeman who shot Ashli Babbittduring the Jan. 6 riot. Press commentary universally portrayed this as a Kremlin attempt to “help” Mr. Trump, but how does it help Mr. Trump, and how could Russia fail to know exactly how its action would be played in the U.S. press? How is the press, therefore, not playing along with Russia? The word we’ve needed all along for the press and its fellow collusion-hoax promoters is disingenuous—defined by Oxford as “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.” Disingenuous was the press’s handling of a collusion story it always knew was partisan, implausible and unsupported. Disingenuous was the New York Times harrumphing last week that the latest John Durham report fails to live up to “years of political hype.” Of course, it shouldn’t have. Hype is short for hyperbole—exaggeration. Do we want prosecutors to cleave to hype or to facts? Read on and the hype Mr. Durham failed to live up to was Donald Trump’s—the paper relies on Mr. Trump to tell it how to frame the news. I could go on. Disingenuous was the Vox writer who trumpeted that Mr. Durham failed to prove a criminal conspiracy by Democrats. Mr. Durham not only failed to prove it, he failed to charge it, and never suggested by word or deed this was his intention. In his three measured criminal cases, he never cited conspiracy charges. He also did not leak. He did not rush his work to influence elections. This studied disingenuousness has been the press’s consistent method on collusion for six years, instead of asking the obvious question, “What is true?” And it continues. To convince itself the FBI was on the up and up, the press continues to place impossible weight on the fact that, in officially opening a Trump investigation, the agency made a point of citing the one piece of evidence that didn’t originate with the Clinton campaign. The press continues to distort the plain words of the Justice Department inspector general, who explained at length why he is prohibited from inferring improper motives from improper acts by FBI officials. And when all else fails, rely on insinuation and the unprovability of a negative. But politicized and partisan aren’t the same thing. In my reading of events, the FBI’s leadership, while suffused with contempt for Mr. Trump, mainly assumed Mrs. Clinton would win. Then Mr. Trump won and a desperate coverup was born. Just put into words what happened: In response to fake and possibly planted Russian intelligence, the FBI improperly and insubordinately meddled in the Clinton email case (as per the inspector general) in a way that accidentally helped elect Mr. Trump. This story, still hidden in a classified appendix of the inspector general’s report, is an agreed blind spot by Mr. Trump and the FBI. Neither is keen to emphasize the agency’s contribution to his 2016 victory. The one stone left unturned by Mr. Durham, except in a single footnote, is the spate of illegal leaks, a potential avenue for imposing criminal liability on FBI leadership for the cavalcade of misadventure it inflicted on the country. For whether you despise Mr. Trump and wish he were never elected or believe he should have been given a chance, both sides can blame James Comey. Hard to exaggerate is how much damage this one man did to our country in 2016 and 2017. You think Mr. Comey and his intelligence confrères were protecting the country from Mr. Trump? They couldn’t care less: They were trying to protect themselves from blowback for their own actions. All along, the press has been shockingly incompetent and dishonest. I’m not given to categorical predictions, but here’s one: If the New York Times, Washington Post and other top-tier news outlets treated any one of the following stories the way they would have if Donald Trump didn’t exist—the collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop evasion, the Biden clan’s influence-peddling—Mr. Trump would be a fading force in U.S. politics by now. The thing that primarily keeps him afloat is the contemptible behavior of his enemies, including a press that insists on positioning itself as his enemy whatever the damage to its own standards of factual and intellectual honesty. Which brings us to where we started. The right way to report the new Russian sanctions list would have been to be upfront with readers and viewers about the Kremlin’s desire to inflame again the collusion controversy, to keep Americans divided and distrustful of each other and their institutions. But of course this might have opened the question of the press’s “collusion” with Russia in whipping up the collusion hoax in the first place. Appeared in the May 27, 2023, print edition as 'Finally, Can We Ask Who Really Colluded With Russia?'.
Except that it’s not the press or Trump’s critics that are funding him, campaigning for him or voting for him. This argument is basically saying that most of the GOP has no agency and all they do is react inversely to the press.
McCarthy says he’ll move contempt charges against FBI director if subpoena deadline is missed https://thehill.com/homenews/402606...-fbi-director-if-subpoena-deadline-is-missed/ excerpt: Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday warned he would move contempt charges against FBI Director Christopher Wray if he does not produce a subpoenaed document by that day’s deadline. House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued a subpoena earlier this month to compel Wray to produce any FD-1023 forms — records of interactions with confidential sources — from June 2020 that contain the word “Biden.” Comer alleged, without providing details, the form he requested contains information related to “an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions.” “So let me not just tell you. Let me tell Director Christopher Wray, right here, right now: If he misses the deadline today, I am prepared to move contempt charges in Congress against him,” McCarthy said Tuesday on Fox News. In a letter sent to Wray on May 24, Comer expressed frustration at the FBI’s inability to accommodate the committee’s request and threatened to bring contempt charges if the subpoena deadline of May 30 was not met. more at the link
Trump- I'm going to be full facist and fire the entire fbi for coming after me! Gop trolls- hunter biden !!!
where does Wray get off saying "I can't speak to the specifics."? There should be no question from Congress he can refuse to answer. https://dailycaller.com/2023/07/12/...s-businesses-collect-data-innocent-americans/ FBI Director Christopher Wray admitted Wednesday the bureau colludes with businesses to collect information on innocent Americans. ... "George Hill, former FBI supervisor and intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us that the Bank of America, with no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries, for anybody that was a Bank of America customer. Is that true?" Massie asked. "Well, what I do know is that the, a number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity. My understanding is that that's fully lawful." "Did you ask for that information--" "In this specific incident that you're asking about, my understanding is that that information was shared with field offices for information only. But then recalled to avoid even the appearance of any kind of overreach. But my understanding is that is a fully lawful process," Wray said. "Was there a warrant involved?" "Again, my understanding is that the institution in question shared information with us, as happens all the time --" "Did you request the information?" Massie pressed. "I can't speak to the specifics."
I don't think that meant, "I refuse to answer." I think that meant, "I don't know the details and therefore can't provide them."
Thats how I took it, gop looking for there "gotcha" moment. By the way, if anyone watched some of this, Gym Jordan comes off as a bigger clown then normal, that man is the official jock holder of trump
I don't know if we can save the FBI from itself, decades of being run exclusively by Republican directors and Fox News Brain-dead agents who titter to criminals like Giuliani or go on the take from GOPutinists have left it in dire straits. Biden should maybe reform a new FBI with a total clear-out of all appointed positions. It's crazy but since the invention of the modern FBI under Hoover, the FBI has never had a Democrat as a director (the only democratic appointees were all Republicans). Seems like it's time to change that.
Well sure..... But law enforcement is generally a conservative world. Wray, a lifelong conservative, isn't toeing this new populist, conservative line.
Sure, because they have this habit of being more popular and getting more votes - which give you control of cabinet level offices. This is unlike the FBI, which, as stated, has never had a non-Republican appointed director in the roughly 100 years of its entire existence since Hoover took over. Time for Brandon to start firing some people. How many more conservatives like Robert Hanssen are lurking in the Bureau?
Guys on Twitter with Purge mask avatars screaming into the ether-cho chamber about how other conservatives are "enemies of the people" and then getting RT'd & embedded by their peanut gallerists like @Commodore.. ... is about the most on-brand **** for the State of Conservatism in the Year of Our Lord Trump 2023 that i could possibly imagine. Please continue to do this forever - it is the least harmful thing.
