as the WSJ editorial board puts it, the press (led by The NY Times) was an accomplice to the lies You're not going to get a fair assessment from The NY Times https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-d...stopher-steele-d4a01d4e?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 Why the Durham Report Matters to Democracy It is a damning account of the corruption of the FBI and its accomplices. By The Editorial Board May 16, 2023 at 12:38 pm ET Two special counsels, several inspector general reports and six years later, the country finally has a more complete account of the FBI’s Russia collusion probe of the 2016 Donald Trump campaign. Special counsel John Durham’s final report 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 306-page Durham reportreleased Monday afternoon is far more comprehensive than anything issued by original special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Durham had already unfurled some of the narrative with his prosecutions of Russian national Igor Danchenko and Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann. He lost those cases, though the indictments laid out how the Clinton campaign used foreign nationals, an oppo-research outfit, and political insiders to feed the FBI and the media lies about Trump collusion. The Durham report gives a fuller picture of the FBI’s complicity under former director James Comey and deputy Andrew McCabe. It scores an FBI that “failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.” Here are some of the specific findings: • No basis for investigation. 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 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—which would have shown that not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion. • Bias. The Durham report makes clear that partisan hostility played a role in the probe. 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. • Double standards. The report lays out several instances in which the FBI was concerned that agents of foreign governments were seeking influence by donating to the Clinton campaign or the Clinton Foundation. Yet in one case in 2014 the FBI dawdled over obtaining a warrant from the secret FISA court because—according to an agent—“[T]hey were pretty ‘tippy-toeing’ around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President” and the FBI was concerned about interfering with a coming presidential campaign. The FBI gave a Clinton representative a “defensive briefing” about the risks of foreign actors. Mr. Trump received no such briefing. • Willful ignorance. The report lays out numerous examples of the FBI ignoring evidence that it was being used by the Clinton campaign to execute a political dirty trick. This included intelligence the government received in July 2016 alleging that Mrs. Clinton had approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.” Former CIA director John Brennan briefed this material to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Mr. Comey, yet the FBI ignored it. It did the same when it learned that collusion dossier author Christopher Steele was working for the Clinton campaign and that Mr. Steele and oppo-research team Fusion GPS were spreading disinformation to the press. And it ignored exculpatory statements made by Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos in secret FBI recordings. • Russian disinformation. The report says that two members of Russia’s intelligence service “were aware of Steele’s election investigation in early July 2016”—when the former spook first contacted the FBI with his dossier—and that as a result his sources may have been “compromised.” This means the FBI probe that disrupted American politics for three years may have begun as a Russian intelligence operation. *** All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI, whose director reports to the Attorney General. Where were Ms. Lynch and her deputy, Sally Yates? The report notes that Deputy Assistant AG Stuart Evansraised concerns with the investigation, but the Comey FBI snubbed him, and higher-ups at the Justice Department ducked their duty. 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. 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. The Durham team deserves credit for not engaging in leaks, innuendo or politicized actions—precisely the FBI behavior it is criticizing. The report notes that if the findings “leave some with the impression that injustices or misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices or misconduct occurred,” but rather that “the law does not always make a person’s bad judgment, even horribly bad judgement” a crime. The FBI responded to the report by claiming it has already “implemented dozens of corrective actions” that, if in place in 2016, would have “prevented” this mess. Mr. Durham appears to have predicted this shabby evasion, and his report provides a powerful retort. Its conclusion notes that it isn’t recommending “wholesale changes” in guidelines or policies, because the FBI ability to fulfill its responsibilities “comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath . . . As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old,” namely the FBI’s guiding principles of “Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity.” The Russia collusion fabrication and deceptive sale to the public is a travesty that shouldn’t be forgotten. That Washington’s establishment refuses to acknowledge its role in this deceit is one reason so many Americans don’t trust public institutions. It will take years for honest public servants to undo the damage, but the Durham accounting is a start. Appeared in the May 17, 2023, print edition as 'Why the Durham Report Matters'.
LOL.... I don't remember them settling in court over election lies..... Do you? The WSJ Opinion section... Meh. Remember how the WSJ new section refused to print/post the Hunter Laptop story when it first came out?
But you think a "fair assessment" will come from the WSJ opinion section? Why didnt the WSJ new section print the Hunter laptop story when it came out?
You either believe one side of the media or you don't..... The conservative media apparatus pushed out a bogus election lies, went to court over it, and settled. Apparently that side is capable of a "fair assessment".
look, you've got papers like The NY Times and the Washington Post on one end of the "it's a nothing burger" spectrum, and Ben Shapiro and his ilk on the opposite end of the "it's the end of democracy as we know it" spectrum. The truth is somewhere in the middle. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/us/politics/durham-report-trump-russia.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/16/durham-investigation-trump-russia/ https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...tical_scandal_in_american_history_149238.html
it may not be the end of democracy as we know it, but it certainly sealed the end of the credibility of the 4th estate.
It doesn't do any of that. The report is laughable and the investigation was a joke / waste of time. No corruption was revealed. You are in a cult, seek help.
Look…. Quote someone when you are talking to them…. We already had an investigation into the FBI and Trump…. recommendations and changes were already adopted by the FBI. What did this Durham report add to that? I take it you aren’t concerned by Durham’s biases?
Durham wrote an Op-ed. He found the same conclusions as the IG already had found. He didn't find criminal activity except for one guilty plea for an FBI agent making a false claim. It's great that the IG highlighted problems with FBI and their warrants. That should be exposed, and corrected. But it isn't a good use of time, resources and manpower to have a special prosecutor come to the same findings but release it in words more candied towards his bosses and their political mission of revenge. Durham despite having the leeway, powers and budget granted, he was 0 for 2 in court cases. That's pretty unheard of for a Federal prosecutor. If you have found something new and groundbreaking from the report please share it.
all I've got for you is that the CIA and FBI seem to have fought for Hillary against Trump in 2016, and the CIA and FBI then came to Joe Biden's rescue against Trump in 2020 with the Hunter-Biden's-laptop-is-a-Russian-disinfo-op shtick. Beyond that I don't know what to tell you
and did it all with the approval of the Obama AG, and the knowledge, and at least tacit acceptance, of Obama himself. when the history of the 2016 election is written, never forget that it all happened on Obama's watch.
Well, the FBI also acted against Hillary in 2016. I saw nothing new about the FBI and CIA in regard to Hunter and Joe.
pretty much what Andrew McCarthy argues https://www.nationalreview.com/2023...arys-plan-to-smear-trump-it-abetted-the-plan/ excerpt: Clearly, there was a Clinton campaign strategy to frame Trump. Yet the most sensible interpretation of the evidence Durham has amassed is not that the FBI, in evaluating its collusion evidence, failed to weigh intercepted Russian intelligence about that strategy. It is that the FBI was well aware of Clinton’s strategy, fully expected Clinton to be the next president, and helped implement the strategy, regardless of what Russian spies may or may not have thought about it. The FBI knowingly treated Clinton with kid gloves. FBI lawyer Lisa Page warned the bureau’s senior intelligence investigator, Peter Strzok, to tread lightly in interviewing Clinton about the email scandal — fearful that, upon winning the election, Clinton would otherwise be vengeful against the FBI. The special counsel elaborates on attempts by two foreign governments to buy influence with Clinton by making donations to her campaign. Contrary to the zealousness with which the FBI opened a full-blown investigation of Trump’s campaign based on risibly thin information in the stretch run of the 2016 race, the bureau sat on the Clinton information for months — even though the first foreign scheme commenced in 2014, before Clinton had even formally announced her candidacy. Clinton’s campaign was given a defensive briefing to ensure she was not placed in a compromising position. Trump’s campaign, by contrast, was immediately subjected to a full-court press, including eavesdropping and the deployment of informants — which persisted for a year, even though the evidence gathered was exculpatory. Durham documents that President Obama, Vice President Biden, top intelligence officials, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI director Comey were fully briefed by CIA director John Brennan on Russia’s assessment of Clinton’s plan to frame Trump. seems like Obama either supported the process or at best looked the other way
Which the report acknowledges the DOJ and tacitly Obama himself were justified in initiating the investigation. Also they did it out of Public view prior to the election. Certainly not an attempt to sway the electorate.
