Yes. Looks like the investigation was a big dud and waste of tax payer dollars. I'm sure you have learned a valuable lesson from this.
Not when talking about a special prosecutor. I'm taking the absolute correct test. What test would you use to judge a PROSECUTOR? Wouldn't it be successful prosecutions?
Also noteworthy... the current AG released the report in full (no edits, no redactions) And didn't send out a highly editorialized summary version out in advance.
Also Durham acknowledged that the investigation was not started because of the Steele Dossier and that the FBI didn’t get the Steele Dossier until well after the investigation was underway. Further while Mr. Durham also criticized the F.B.I. for relying on the Australian diplomat’s tio on George Papadopoulis he also stated there was “no question the F.B.I. had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” what the Australians had provided. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-investigation-durham.html
Yes worse than Watergate where 69 people were indicted with 48 convictions compared to three indictments and one conviction on a relatively minor charge. No new findings or any major revaluations.
There is an obvious flaw with measuring the severity of government curroption by number of convictions.
The FBI certainly isn’t perfect and their own IG found that. Durham didn’t break any new ground and further failed to show anything more than what had been acknowledged before.
The two in which Durham failed to get a conviction in either. Federal Prosecutors have a conviction rate of something over 90%, yet Durham with all of his powers and leeway got one plea deal and went 0 for 2 in court. It's hilarious that you and @basso are suggesting the result of the prosecutor's work shouldn't be judged by how the prosecutor did in court.
