4 ms·

It absolutely did, and you can read the executive summary [0] to see the details in just a few pages. I'm not going to copy/paste the whole thing here but start

It absolutely did, and you can read the executive summary [0] to see the details in just a few pages. I'm not going to copy/paste the whole thing here but start with page 9 (which highlights the contrast of reckless investigations into the Trump campaign compared with cautious refusal to investigate the Clinton campaign), and continue onto pages 11-12 (which describe the origins of the investigation, namely an uncorroborated document containing opposition research created by a paid contractor of the Clinton campaign). I'm not sure how you can read this as anything other than suggesting clear political bias in the handling and opening of the investigation into the Trump campaign, which - as the Durham report makes clear is its central point - was opened completely without basis in a manner divergent from all proper procedure. [0] https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

ModernMech 3y ago
> I'm not sure how you can read this as anything other than suggesting clear political bias in the handling and opening of the investigation into the Trump campaign Because you haven't answered the question as to why the Durham report was needed at all given the DOJ IG was doing his job. In fact, we know Durham was full of shit because he ended up with nothing except some whining. Everything concrete thing he found was already found by Horrowitz. So he was redundant there. Where Durham was not redundant was in his "speaking indictments" which didn't actually result in a single conviction, but instead just speculated wildly outside of both fact and the law, but existed within court documents, so the patina of legitimacy was applied. But again, Durham never proved anything. We also know he's full of shit because in his final report, he tried to relitigate the cases he actually already had lost in court. Very unprofessional, worst SC since Starr. Just a lot of whining and complaining over nothing. Trump incited Jan 6 and he will be imprisoned for it. Trump stole national secrets and he will be imprisoned for that too. Trump attempted to rig Georgia's election and he will be imprisoned for that as well. Trump also, on top of all of that, colluded with the Russians in the 2016 campaign, and he will not go to jail for that, for it isn't a crime. But he did it, the Mueller report and Senate Intel Committee report proves it, and the Durham report failed to find improper predicate. This is completely in the face of Trump-world lore, where Obama illegally spied on Trump, and the Clinton campaign caused the FBI to start a "witch hunt" investigation. No. It was found the Trump campaign colluded, and he was investigated because he did the thing. The investigation was not found to be improper by Horrowitz, fire was found where there was smoke. And let's say you are correct, that there was "political bias" in opening the investigation. Does that mean instead, we should have just let Trump's collusion with Russia go uninvestigated? Meeting with foreign spies promising relaxed relations in return for dirt on your opponent? Turning over campaign data to the Russian GRU while they are waging a psyops campaign against Americans? My god, might as well just invite the Russians into the oval office and just hand them them classified information. Oh wait, he did that too. Come back to me once he's convicted and tell me again how the FBI shouldn't have investigated him. He's a career criminal and a psychopath. Also known as a fascist, and he should be nowhere near the presidency ever again. We should all be politically biased against such a person.
- wofy52 3y ago
  ^ This is what happens when you watch too much CNN. Your brain literally rots away.
bandyaboot 3y ago
The comment I was replying to was rebutting the notion that “the Democrats” launched FBI investigations into their political opponents. That’s what I was referring to. Durham didn’t suggest anything of the sort. And if there were such clear political bias, how do we explain the repeated decisions by the Director to make public spectacles and admonishments of Clinton regarding the investigation into her handling of email?

ModernMech 3y ago

> I'm not sure how you can read this as anything other than suggesting clear political bias in the handling and opening of the investigation into the Trump campaign Because you haven't answered the question as to why the Durham report was needed at all given the DOJ IG was doing his job. In fact, we know Durham was full of shit because he ended up with nothing except some whining. Everything concrete thing he found was already found by Horrowitz. So he was redundant there. Where Durham was not redundant was in his "speaking indictments" which didn't actually result in a single conviction, but instead just speculated wildly outside of both fact and the law, but existed within court documents, so the patina of legitimacy was applied. But again, Durham never proved anything. We also know he's full of shit because in his final report, he tried to relitigate the cases he actually already had lost in court. Very unprofessional, worst SC since Starr. Just a lot of whining and complaining over nothing. Trump incited Jan 6 and he will be imprisoned for it. Trump stole national secrets and he will be imprisoned for that too. Trump attempted to rig Georgia's election and he will be imprisoned for that as well. Trump also, on top of all of that, colluded with the Russians in the 2016 campaign, and he will not go to jail for that, for it isn't a crime. But he did it, the Mueller report and Senate Intel Committee report proves it, and the Durham report failed to find improper predicate. This is completely in the face of Trump-world lore, where Obama illegally spied on Trump, and the Clinton campaign caused the FBI to start a "witch hunt" investigation. No. It was found the Trump campaign colluded, and he was investigated because he did the thing. The investigation was not found to be improper by Horrowitz, fire was found where there was smoke. And let's say you are correct, that there was "political bias" in opening the investigation. Does that mean instead, we should have just let Trump's collusion with Russia go uninvestigated? Meeting with foreign spies promising relaxed relations in return for dirt on your opponent? Turning over campaign data to the Russian GRU while they are waging a psyops campaign against Americans? My god, might as well just invite the Russians into the oval office and just hand them them classified information. Oh wait, he did that too. Come back to me once he's convicted and tell me again how the FBI shouldn't have investigated him. He's a career criminal and a psychopath. Also known as a fascist, and he should be nowhere near the presidency ever again. We should all be politically biased against such a person.

wofy52 3y ago
^ This is what happens when you watch too much CNN. Your brain literally rots away.

bandyaboot 3y ago

The comment I was replying to was rebutting the notion that “the Democrats” launched FBI investigations into their political opponents. That’s what I was referring to. Durham didn’t suggest anything of the sort. And if there were such clear political bias, how do we explain the repeated decisions by the Director to make public spectacles and admonishments of Clinton regarding the investigation into her handling of email?