I know this comment was directed toward @basso, and I also know that you have stated you have me on ignore (so you may not even read this), but here goes anyway. You might be better off reading the section on bias at the end of the report rather than limiting yourself to the executive summary. I will take the liberty and post the full three pages from the report here. I think Durham is quite careful to frame his conclusions about bias as "confirmation bias." In doing so I think he wants to avoid what might otherwise be a fairly obvious and direct allegation or accusation of motivated, targeted, and unjustified persecution of Trump and the Trump campaign. For those who care to read between the lines, that is certainly a plausible and possible explanation of events, maybe even a likely explanation of events described in the report. As I said, however, Durham is careful to limit himself to what he can objectively and neutrally describe (i.e., "viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Crossfire Hurricane investigators"). here is the relevant section:
Part of what Durham is talking about there was already in the IG report. He also includes information about the trials involving Sussman and Danchenko. He's still putting forward stuff as if it is valid from the court cases he prosecuted and lost. He doesn't make any note of that part. It is why so much of this is just opinion about what the evidence shows.
yes. For example, a point-counterpoint: Philip Bump, "There’s now even less reason to blame Clinton for the Russia probe": https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/17/clinton-durham-report/ Jonathan Turley, "Wait! Washington Post’s Bump Makes the Last Pitch for Russian Collusion": https://jonathanturley.org/2023/05/...mp-makes-the-last-case-for-russian-collusion/
I don't understand the constant dismissals of "op-eds" without regard to the actual arguments being presented. Forget "op-ed" . . . what you have in many if not most/all of these pieces is analysis. One should either read such analyses and try to form some view about how to interpret events, or one should just give up. There is very, very little of what used to be called "straight news reporting" anymore. The Durham report provides ample evidence of that reality. Op-ed analysis is crucial for understanding current events.
Because it’s not news and is treated differently ….The fact that you can only post OP-Eds to support your position is telling. If I post more OP Eds that show how much the Durham report is wet fart, do I win? Or will you just dismiss it as biased?
I have no problems with op-ed articles in general. I do have a problem with the report from the Special Prosecutor being basically an op-ed. That shouldn't be an op-ed. That should be a presentation of facts and the investigation. Just because he still believes that he had good evidence against certain actors in the events, doesn't mean that it is acceptable evidence as it was already presented and rejected. That should play a role in the confusion and report made.
I disagree with your characterization of the report as an op-ed, but respect your right to hold that view I believe that the report does a good job with presenting the facts and results of the investigation here I am unsure what exactly you are referring to when you state "he still believes that." Textual evidence or support for the point you are making would help, although I realize that the report is over 300 pages and it would be a chore to produce such support not sure I follow also not sure I follow. What "confusion" is being referred to here? serious question
I say it is an op-ed, because Durham is just using different language which favors his bosses to say the same thing as in the IG report already filed. In addition, Sussman was accused of lying when he passed the information to his contacts in the Clinton campaign. Yet Durham still acts like the information he passed was a lie. That was the tip he passed on about the connection between Trump and the Russians. Durham was unable to prove in court that the information was fake. To present it as if the information is definitely false doesn't jibe with the facts. Danchenko was accused and tried of making 5 different false accounts regarding sources for information for the Steele Dossier. Danchenko was found innocent of all of that. So to present it as if it was all fake sources of information for the Steele Dossier is not consistent with the facts. It is confusing for Durham to present that stuff in his report as if he was right about that all along. He wasn't. Durham's report puts the above information in numerous points throughout its pages. . As we see the area in which Sussman was accused. Sussman was found innocent. The record does not reflect what Durham is claiming here. He's acting as if he actually won the case which he lost. Durham goes on for about 20 pages (126 - 146) to present all of the same evidence he used in the trial against Danchenko which Durham lost. That shows a definite bias and leaves out the fact that he lost his case against Danchenko. Danchenko was acquitted. I think anyone would be reasonable to question what Durham was doing putting this stuff in there like that without mentioning what happened when took the evidence to trial against Danchenko.
I can go back and reread this section, not sure how to interpret "Yet Durham still acts like the information he passed was a lie." I believe there is a difference between what can be proven in court beyond all doubt versus maintaining a suspicion that may still be correct. But I'll go back and see if I can figure out what you're saying here. again, not having followed the trial I am perhaps not well-informed on that. But same comment holds: just because Danchenko was found innocent is one thing; his providing false information is quite a different issue. O.J. Simpson was found innocent; it is still very, very likely that he killed his ex-wife and her friend. thanks for the page reference, I'll go back and take a look
So now we’re defending opinion pieces, sorry analysis, of Durham’s largely opinion piece. Theissen, Turley, Althouse, etc.. are certainly entitled to their opinion / analysis. I welcome them to sign up for Clutchfans and share them here instead of just getting them secondhand from a poster who seems to appeal to their authority.
LOL..... Did one of your Op-Eds make a reference to OJ Simpson in the context of this report? "Still very, very likely that he killed his ex-wife and her friend". Christ..... You are admittingly not well informed on it.... but you power on to conclude "yea, but he's still probably guilty despite being found innocent". He was found innocent on all 5 counts.... but you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your narrative.
You welcome, but that's misleading. Your exact quote was "ad hominem. helpful. thanks." I respond to your ad hominem comment as that was wrong and I think you realize that now.
Durham said they had an obligation to "closely examine," also known as investigate, but he believed it should have been more narrowly focused. As I mentioned before, the FBI conduct was already present in the DoJ IG report in 2019, and the DoJ has already taken actions based on that report. Once again, I want to emphasize that Durham altered the scope of his investigation after discovering minimal evidence of criminal behavior, which Attorney General Barr previously cited to justify elevating Durham to the role of special counsel. And unsurprisingly, the right is utilizing this report to vigorously criticize the DoJ, the FBI, the Clinton, and even the media. In the name of Trump, they are quite determined to discredit anyone associated with investigating him. Or in the name of 'institution are very bad', they are as determined. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/may/17/durham-report-criticized-elements-of-fbis-investig/ Did the Durham report determine that the FBI should have never opened an investigation at all? Durham’s report suggested that the FBI moved too quickly to open a full investigation, but stopped short of denouncing the FBI’s and Justice Department’s decisions to investigate. Durham wrote, "There is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine" intelligence provided by the Australian government, which said its diplomats had heard George Papadopoulos, a Trump adviser, make alarming statements related to Russia. Papadopoulos served 12 days in prison for lying about his attempts to allegedly connect other Trump campaign staff with officials representing Russia. He was pardoned by Trump near the end of Trump’s presidency. Durham wrote that it would have been a "sensible step" for the FBI to have opened a more narrowly focused preliminary investigation based on that intelligence — which Durham wrote was "essentially the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation." Preliminary investigations, he wrote, are constrained by time limits and fewer approved investigation techniques. Durham’s report also recommended the FBI take additional steps to reform its investigation process. He proposed making an FBI official responsible for challenging the steps taken in politically sensitive investigations. Responding to the report, the FBI said the conduct Durham examined was the reason agency leadership implemented corrective actions some time ago, although that time period isn’t specifically defined. If such reforms had been in place in 2016, the agency said, the missteps Durham identified could have been prevented.
Theissen's actual argument was "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." One can evaluate the argument on its merits. Or not. You responded, "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.' " that response is "to the person," i.e., about Theissen. Not about Theissen's argument(s) or conclusion(s).
