Are we talking about Durham report or media? Confused. Are you saying the media (NYT) was involved with the fbi investigation of Trump?
the NYT (and others) played the complicit role of "state media" and acted as the mouthpiece of the CIA, FBI, and Clinton campaign, rather than engage in investigative reporting, which is what a free press in a free society would and should do
here is Bill Jacobson Well, there are a couple of very big takeaways and one of the biggest takeaways is what a destructive, vicious, damaging person Hillary Clinton is to our political process. This Russia collusion thing didn’t only damage Trump. He won the 2016 election anyway, despite this, think how big a victory he might have had without it. But it really froze and paralyzed the country politically for over four years. The damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign did was so tremendous to this nation. I think that to some extent, while it’s being highlighted by a lot of the news coverage, they’re not really doing it personal to Hillary and it to be, she really is possibly the most destructive politician we’ve certainly had in this century, in recent memory. The manipulation that she perpetrated here is so horrible, not for what it did to Donald Trump, that’s bad enough, but what it did to our nation. We’re at each other’s throats because of what Hillary Clinton did. And she needs to be roundly condemned, and she’s not getting a fraction of the criticism that she deserves. *** So I think the damage that’s been done is long lasting it tears at the fabric of our society. And it was caused by Hillary Clinton, the federal government and the mainstream corporate media all acting in unison. more at https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/...-hillary-clinton-is-to-our-political-process/
recall Bob Woodward's interview in February (forgive the Fox News link) Bob Woodward condemns media's Russiagate coverage, reveals reporters ignored his warnings about Steele dossier Woodward says Post reporters had 'lack of curiosity' about criticism of Steele dossier https://www.foxnews.com/media/bob-w...ers-ignored-his-warnings-about-steele-dossier excerpt: Veteran journalist Bob Woodward revealed in a new interview that Washington Post reporters essentially ignored his warnings about the shortcomings of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, amidst the feverish Russiagate media coverage that dominated the Trump administration. In a lengthy report for Columbia Journalism Review, Jeff Gerth interviewed media and political figures wrapped up in Russiagate — the sweeping term for the allegations of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election — including Donald Trump himself, finding in particular where the media went wrong. Woodward, one of the reporters famous for breaking the Watergate scandal for the Washington Post, told Gerth that viewers and readers had been "cheated" by the coverage. "Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ‘wasn’t handled well’ and that he thought viewers and readers had been 'cheated.' He urged newsrooms to 'walk down the painful road of introspection,'" Gerth wrote. The Steele dossier came in for a particular shellacking. The series of memos by ex-British spy Christopher Steele containing unproven allegations of Trump-Russia coordination to defeat Hillary Clinton, as well as salacious sex tape rumors about Trump in Russia, was funded by the Clinton campaign and circulated among intelligence officials, journalists and political figures for weeks in 2016 before BuzzFeed News published its full contents in January 2017. Then-FBI Director James Comey briefed Trump on the 35-page file's contents shortly before he took office. Then-President Barack Obama was also given a summary of the file, which was reported on uncritically by various left-wing media figures who became enthusiastic proponents of the Russiagate conspiracy. It was also used by the FBI to obtain a surveillance warrant for former Trump aide Carter Page, and read into the Congressional Record by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. By the time BuzzFeed printed the dossier, Russiagate media coverage was in launch mode, but Woodward stood out with his declaration in a Fox News appearance on Jan. 15, 2017, that it was a "garbage document" that never should have been part of an intelligence briefing, Gerth wrote. Woodward told Gerth that he then "reached out to people who covered this" at the Washington Post. When asked how they reacted, Woodward said, "To be honest, there was a lack of curiosity on the part of the people at the Post about what I had said, why I said this, and I accepted that and I didn’t force it on anyone." more
I'm with you on criticizing the media for lazy journalism. However, that applies to most media on many stories. But even according to Durham the DOJ and FBI were justified in initiating an investigation. The investigation had some issues with how they got the warrants, but the investigation itself was justified in being opened. Whatever problems the investigation had, they didn't go public to change votes in 2016. Durham’s investigation was motivated by political revenge. So there is a bigger question whether that investigation was justified, particularly given the final result. The Russia investigation had dozens of guilty verdicts and pleas as well as reveal revealed actual new information.
You lost me there with the Clinton campaign. You don't remember how many negative articles they had on Clinton and her campaign heading into the 2016 election? If media reporting on what is passed on to them or publicly known is state media, then everyone is state media, including the AP. I don't agree at all with that definition. The investigation was conducted quietly behind closed doors until Trump interfered, and a special counsel was appointed by a Republican. Trump was his own worst enemy. The initial investigation also began independently of any involvement from the Clinton campaign, as Durham himself acknowledged. I recommend reading the full NYT article to gain a better understanding of the details. Overall, this is another biased attack on the media. The NYT (and much of media) have its problems, but it is not a mouthpiece of the government. The closest entity to that would be Fox News. We know that Fox News talking heads communicated with the White House and Trump through text messages during his time in office. Hannity, in particular, received directions directly from the Trump White House to promote their messages on the day of the election and afterward.
LOL..... And you think the Durham report was an unbiased investigation as a free society? Answer this question.... What did this investigation uncover that the IG investigation didn't? It took how many years to uncover what additional information?
Did the Mueller investigation uncover that Trump had contact with and shared information with Kremlin backed associates? Yes.
Did you read the report? It actually does say it, but Durham tries to act like it doesn't. It says that it wasn't justified (big hint - but that's the part that is opinion and not evidence). Yet it shows the evidence showing it was justified. The conclusions of the report by Durham try and include the charges and allegations which he lost in court. Those parts of the report were shown to not have held sufficient proof of diddly. Yet Durham admitted they did have valid reasons for starting the investigation.
I am not sure you actually read it. Or you didn't read anything else about it. The report tries to still claim allegations and claims that didn't hold up in the trials Durham lost, which were the only two he took to court.
Why Special Counsel John Durham’s report takes so long to say so little Rarely has a government report taken so long — in years and pages — to tell the public so little as Special Counsel John Durham’s report to the Department of Justice this week. Four years after then-AG Bill Barr first ordered Durham to investigate the investigators, he produced a ponderous, 316-page tome that interminably chews over information that has long been in the public record. Durham took twice as long as Mueller to bring three small cases that had next to nothing to do with his central task, yielding two acquittals and one guilty plea that resulted in no prison time. Moreover, his office was roiled by controversy: His respected deputy, Nora Dannehy, resigned in 2020, reportedly out of concern that Durham was politicizing the investigation.
lol. fans of the Mueller report will appreciate Durham's direct quotation of the Mueller Report on this point:
Except that the Mueller report did produce several successful prosecutions and Mueller himself said that regarding Trump he was restraining by DOJ policy.
even the Post is drawing attention to the media failures https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/17/durham-report-trump-russia-collusion-media/ Opinion: The Durham report is a damning indictment of the FBI — and the media By Marc A. Thiessen Columnist| May 17, 2023 at 4:16 p.m. EDT Special counsel John Durham’s report into the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is a damning indictment of the FBI — and, by extension, its enablers in the media who breathlessly reported the false allegations against Donald Trump. So, perhaps it’s unsurprising that many in the media are seeking to downplay Durham’s findings. “After years of political hype, the Durham inquiry failed to deliver,” a New York Times headline blared. Please. Durham’s report outlines stunning abuses of power. That so many journalists don’t get it underscores why public trust in the media is at an all-time low. The FBI opened its investigation of Trump, Durham writes, “upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia,” which agents knew was flimsy. “Damn that’s thin,” one FBI official wrote in August 2016. “I know,” replied another, “it sucks.” But they went ahead with a full investigation anyway, Durham reports, even though FBI personnel acknowledged “both then and in hindsight — that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target [the Trump campaign] was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power.” They “disregarded significant exculpatory information” and used “investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents” to obtain search warrants. One FBI official falsified evidence presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Worst of all, the FBI failed to inform the court that the primary source behind the Steele dossier, which the agency used to secure FISA warrants, was the subject of an unresolved FBI counterespionage investigation for ties to — wait for it — Russian intelligence. Igor Danchenko, who was responsible for 80 percent of the information in the dossier, had a “long history with Russian intelligence officers,” Durham reports. While working at the Brookings Institution, he asked a colleague he thought was about to join the Obama administration whether he would “be willing or able in the future to provide classified information in exchange for money.” The colleague reported it to the FBI, which launched a full investigation after discovering that Danchenko “had been identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects” and “known Russian intelligence officers.” That investigation was left unresolved because the FBI incorrectly believed Danchenko had returned to Russia. The FBI never “attempted to resolve the prior Danchenko espionage matter” before hiring him as a paid informant in the Trump investigation, Durham writes. Indeed, the Trump investigators brushed off concerns raised by officials vetting Danchenko that he was connected to Russian intelligence and falsely claimed that there was no “derogatory” information about him and that he “had not been a prior subject of an FBI investigation.” They gave him a letter of immunity, paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars and kept that information from the FISA court. It was possible, Durham writes, that “the intelligence Danchenko was providing … was, in whole or in part, Russian disinformation.” (Durham attempted to prosecute Danchenko for lying to investigators about his sources, but Danchenko was found not guilty.) In other words, the FBI knowingly relied on a source who had been under investigation as a possible Russian spy to investigate whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. You can’t make it up. Think of what that means: It was the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee that funded the Steele dossier, which relied on a Russian with suspected ties to Russian intelligence. The FBI then included the dossier as part of the materials it used to investigate Trump, paralyzing our country, undermining a newly elected president for two years while costing tens of millions of dollars — all over what ended up being a conspiracy theory. You might think journalists would want to get to the bottom of how they were duped so that they could repair the reputational damage to themselves and their industry. Apparently not. And make no mistake — that damage is severe and has had deep repercussions for our democracy. An Edelman poll in 2021 found that 59 percent of Americans believe “journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” A New York Times-Siena College poll last October found that 84 percent of respondents view the media as a threat to democracy, including 59 percent who agreed it is a “major threat.” Indeed, more Americans said the media is a major threat to democracy than said Trump is. This collapse in trust — particularly among the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump — directly contributed to the events of Jan 6., 2021. Why did Trump supporters storm the Capitol? Because they believed Trump’s false claims that the election was being stolen. And why did they believe him? If the media lied to them about Trump’s collusion with Russia, why should they trust reports that Trump’s election claims were false? Durham’s report lays bare why trust in the media lies in tatters. If in 2024, Americans decide that journalists are a greater threat to our democracy than a second Trump term, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Also in 2016 the NYT was publishing pieces that were very critical of Hillary Clinton including the reports that later proved to be very weak regarding uranium deals and the Clinton Foundation.
Like the NYT, WSJ, and others major newspaper, the Post also has an OP section with contributing members across the political spectrum. This is again why the attack on the media as a "state media" is so off-base. The Post: "Marc Thiessen writes a column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush. He is a Fox News contributor."
and guess what, some on the left were calling the NYT as a mouthpiece of the very rich (Trump, the Billionaire)..
