Source: Wall Street Journal (free link).
The writer salvages some hope from the crashing of expectations related to the Durham investigation. She suggests that we may not see the perp walks some have wanted, but at least the FBI’s grievous sins are revealed.
Yes. Prosecutorial failure has become a new standard. It is always thus at empire’s end; and thus, too, the best one can hope for are redemptions that arise from lessons learned.
Here the most important lesson concerns propaganda. Too many Americans believe they are immune from it, or above it, or away from it; that propaganda is something which happens only to other people, usually people of a lesser breed. Durham, however, has shown that the FBI leveraged propaganda (the Steel dossier) to achieve obscure political aims. We have all seen the enormous waves of propaganda that subsequently broke around the FBI’s reefs to “explain” or “justify” this scandalous behavior. The rule of law has been all but washed away, obviously — by propaganda.
The FBI is not what we thought it was. That’s not much, but it’s a start.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
What a bunch of hooey!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Durham has established that the FBI and DOJ are either relentlessly partisan, or utterly incompetent, or both.
Take your pick.
LikeLike
One guilty plea on a minor offense and one acquittal so far after years and millions is hardly damning.
It’s more of “nothing burger”.
This case may amount to a side order of empty fries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Getting a conviction before a DC jury isn’t likely no matter the proof.
But Durham has exposed the incompetence and partisanship of the FBI and DOJ thoroughly to any open mind.
LikeLike
An open mind? Like yours? Milk out the nose funny.
Your go to explanation of Durham’s failure is this insult to DC citizens. It is bullshit but hardly relevant – even if true. If you were not so obsessed with your own prejudices and preconceived ideas maybe you would have noticed that there have been ZERO serious cases brought to ANY jury. Where are the indictments for a deep state conspiracy that you were promised and you were sure would be forthcoming?
IG Horowitz got it right three years ago when he wrote . . .
“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Want to move the trial to Baton Rouge?
I’ll see what I can do. 😇
You remind me of someone in the news who claims everything is rigged even before the outcome. Must be a right wing victim affliction.
Or BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Norfolk would do. But trying Federal bureaucrats before a jury of Federal bureaucrats or their dependents is a non-starter fir a fair trial.
LikeLike
You do know that there are a lot of people living in DC who are not working for our government.
Retail stores, private schools, lawn care companies, painters, movers, doctors, nurses, waitstaff, plumbers, electricians, contractors, restaurateurs, hotel owners, pest control…
You do know that both the prosecutors and the defendants can strike jurors during selection.
You do know that their are Republicans who also work for the government.
Of course you do.
So what is your beef? Just a pre-emptive complaint in case he gets acquitted.
Democrat Derangement Syndrome is a cruel mistress, but demanding.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You would have to get a jury of twelve, all of whom do not regard a fellow bureaucrat as one of their tribe.
In DC that is impossible.
LikeLike
Impossible?
Do you have any real data to prove that?
The man they are trying is not a bureaucrat. Neither was the acquitted attorney.
What you are asserting is that no one can ever get a fair trial from any jurors who might be remotely related to his job. If a doctor were on trial, you would complain that some jurors filled prescriptions from their own doctor that improved their health, so they are biased.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But the real problem is the cases that won’t even get tried because Durhan knows the odds. So, convictions are the real goal. Exposure is,
But Durham’s final report will be good reading.
LikeLike
“But Durham’s final report will be good reading.”
So, the goal posts have moved again. About the fifth or six time on this Durham investigation. Just you wait. LOL!
I hate to tell you, Lucy is not going to let you kick that ball Charlie Brown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”the cases that won’t even get tried because Durhan knows the odds”
Then he should be fired. It is prosecutorial misconduct to NOT prosecute based on “odds”. It is stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You would have to get a jury of twelve, all of whom do not regard a fellow bureaucrat as one of their tribe.”
Utter nonsense again. There has not been ANY trial of a federal bureaucrat and there won’t be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So, convictions are the real goal. Exposure is,”
I assume you left out a “not” as in “not the real goal.”
If so, you have just confirmed that you understand that the whole Durham investigation was a political hit job and a corrupt abuse of prosecutorial powers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncovering partisan manipulation of an election by the FBI and DOJ is not a political hit job, it is the exposure of one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Uncovering partisan manipulation of an election by the FBI and DOJ is not a political hit job, it is the exposure of one.”
And you deny the veracity of 1/6 Committee findings even though they have exposed the root causes, the long term planning and players for the attack.
Seems a bit contrary to me. Or more likely, “my tribe’s investigation is good, yours is bad”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think the word you are seeking is HYPOCRISY.
LikeLike
“Uncovering partisan manipulation . . .”
Laughably hypocritical from someone who whines about the DOJ pursuing 01/06 “patriots.” That is weaponizing the DOJ, but Durham’s feckless attempts to “expose” the “deep state conspiracy” on Trump’s explicit behalf is not?
Any DOJ “prosecution” where a conviction is not the goal is abuse. Period. What has actually occurred is that the Durham prosecution failed to find crimes so you have moved the goal posts. Oh, you say, it was never about prosecuting crimes. It was always about “exposure.” Well, here is something you may not understand. Durham airing his opinions without supporting evidence is not “exposing” anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not exactly,
I said prosecuting crimes before a DV jury was hopeless.
But the trials are showing the rest of the country the partisanship of the FBI and deep state.
And that goes before a much wider jury in about 3 weeks.
LikeLike
“And that goes before a much wider jury in about 3 weeks.”
LOL! Again you acknowledge that Durham’s mission was a political one.
I give you full marks for your brazen pretense that Durham exposed something of consequence. That is what you have been told to say and there you go playing along.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The American people are a better judge of the FBI’s malfeasance than a DC jury.
LikeLike
“The American people are a better judge of the FBI’s malfeasance than a DC jury.”
Maybe, but first they need to see some evidence of that malfeasance. NONE has been produced. Meanwhile, just about every day we get further confirmation of the criminal behavior of the con man you so admire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean none that you will read,
WE know factually that Autin and others in the FBI knew the Steele dossier was paid for by Democrats, not sourced, and even when offered a million dollars, Steele could not support it, yet it was used as a primary document in applying for a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
What else would we need?
LikeLike
You mean the Trump-appointed LED FBI? Silly silly desperation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Take your pick.”
Laughable.
He has established no such thing. His investigation has proven to be a monumental flop. Three years and massive resources to produce diddly squat. One minor plea deal, one embarrassing loss in court, and based on the fight he got into with his key witness in the final minor trial, he is likely to lose another.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you read the WSJ article?
LikeLike
Yes. I read it before you linked to it. It is Rupert Murdoch bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Murdoch owns the WSJ?
LikeLike
“Murdoch owns the WSJ?”
Uh, yes.
For the last 15 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well then
“Mr. Steele was still unable to verify anything; he initially even refused to tell the FBI the names of his sources. FBI Supervisory Analyst Brian Auten admitted to the court this week that while the bureau had zero confirmation of any dossier details, it made the document’s claims central to an Oct. 21, 2016, application for a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump campaign official Carter Page.”
And yet Auten used the Dossier in his affidavit to the FISA court, swearing that to the best of his knowledge the evidence was true and correct(standard language)
And you still deny the FBI is either incompetent or corrupt?
What would it take?
LikeLike
“What would it take?”
A lot more than one guy screwing up. The FBI has approximately 35,000 agents and employees. Even if this fellow was rotten to the core he represents 0.003% of their people.
Almost three years of expensive investigation has not resulted in charges against ANY other FBI employees.
Besides, as IG Horowitz noted, their was sufficient probable cause to open the investigations WITHOUT the Steele dossier. And there was, according to him, no evidence of any kind of malevolent intent. If there had been, they would have made it known to the public before the 2016 election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are grossly mischaracterizing Horowitz. See the The Press’s Battle with the Truth
LikeLike
I quoted him directly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you quoted WAPO’s out of context snippet.
LikeLike
“No, you quoted WAPO’s out of context snippet.”
Which captured the essential finding – NO DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, Read the Press’s Battle with the Truth
LikeLike
“Again, Read the Press’s Battle with the Truth”
Uh, no. I am totally not interested in this kind of propaganda. You want to believe bullshit. I don’t.
The FACTS are in. No Murdoch opinion writer can spin them away. After years of trying and with plenty of resources at his disposal, Mr. Durham brought forward ZERO evidence that serious crimes were committed by the FBI in their attempts to keep Putin from undermining our country. Not one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When my granddaughter doesn’t want to hear something she sticks her fingers in her ears and hollers so she doesn’t hear it.
But she’s 7.
LikeLike
And I will bet that when the real world does not conform to her wishes she whines and cries.
I understand your rebuke. It does not sting. Facts trump partisan spin every time whether YOU are able to handle the truth or not. The truth in this case has been obvious from the beginning – the FBI was doing its job by tracking Russian interference. Trump’s campaign was caught up in those efforts because of its interactions with Russian agents. Mueller proved that. Horowitz confirmed that truth and now Durham’s failure confirms it as well.
You decry the political weaponization of the DOJ but there is no better example of that than the Durham investigation. Its purpose was purely partisan and even though it found nothing of substance, it worked on you. Lawbreakers want law enforcement to be discredited.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mr. Murphy has ignorantly chosen “hooey”
LikeLiked by 1 person
How’s life under the bridge and in the silo, Mr. Roberts.
LikeLiked by 1 person