Durham Investigation was worse than you thought.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

This is a long piece going into the dishonesty and dysfunction of the Barr/Durham efforts to “weaponize” the DOJ to protect Trump and prosecute the “deep state.” If MAGA-Republicans are seriously concerned about the DOJ being misused for political purposes, this Durham fiasco should be a focus of their inquiries.

If you do not have access to the NYT, the picture is clear. Durham is now wrapping up after four years and has found nothing in spite of tactics and sources that were questionable at best. This link may give access if NYT is paywalled.

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled

One particularly telling episode was when it was revealed to reporters that the inquiry had morphed into a criminal investigation. Oh My! But, it turns out that the criminal investigation was into financial crimes committed by Donald Trump which the Italian government made known to Durham. What became of that part of the investigation remains undisclosed.

Published by Paul Murphy

Published

31 thoughts on “Durham Investigation was worse than you thought.”

    1. Me, too.

      The first source (NYT) is paywalled to me, and scanning through the second I don’t see much of interest.

      Like

      Reply

    2. You’ll wait for the report?

      Here is a hint – he did not find a “deep state” conspiracy or criminal conduct in the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Like you people said that he most certainly would. Over and over again as the investigation fizzled. In simple language the con man bamboozled you yet again.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

        1. This is not about what he has to say. He did that in court already.

          The reporting is about the conduct of his investigation where he did the very things that he was supposed to find in the Russia-Trump investigation, but didn’t. In simple language, this was far more a “weaponization” of the DOJ than anything he was investigating.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. RE: “The reporting is about the conduct of his investigation where he did the very things that he was supposed to find in the Russia-Trump investigation, but didn’t.”

          So you say, but that’s your fantasy life. Nothing of substance or hitherto unknown has been revealed by the reporting. So, until Durham delivers his report or takes questions from the press all we have is a nothingburger.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “So, until Durham delivers his report . . .”

            Durham was not engaged to write a report. His mission was to prosecute criminal behavior. With three years of effort and millions of dollars to spend he got one guilty plea on a minor charge that had already been reported by the IG. He took two cases against outsiders to trial. Both were acquitted. No other employee of the “deep state” was even charged. So you are correct – “all we have is a nothingburger.”

            But you keep waiting for his report. I will predict here and now, it will still be a “nothingburger.” The only news likely to be in it might be further information on the alleged financial crimes committed by Trump and reported by the Italian government. Maybe he can explain in his report, why no charges were filed on that one?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “Durham was not engaged to write a report.”

            And yet, one of your sources claims he is preparing one. But go ahead, fantasize about things that haven’t happened yet.

            Like

        3. “There is no point in talking about what Durham has to say until he says it.”

          Really? I kind of recall you and Don telling us how damning the Durham report was going to be for the FBI. Sounds like your tune has changed because, OOOPS, He did it again.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Excellent point!
            These MAGA-Republicans could not talk about it enough when they had been convinced Durham was going to prove that poor widdle Trumpie had been persecuted by the mean ole “deep state.” Now? Not so much.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. In court records. That is where he presented the evidence of wrong-doing that he found. He was almost literally laughed out of court.

          Any opinions he offers in his final report that he could not support with evidence in court do not amount to a hill of beans. His complete failure confirms that IG Horowitz got it right three years ago. Some people in the FBI may have thought very little of Trump (what educated person doesn’t) but there is no evidence that they let their opinions affect their work.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. That isn’t his report. That’s what he thought he could prove in court(though not in DC)

            Again, I’ll wait for his report. If it is buried, we will have to take that as evidence that even the darkest conspiravy theories are correct.

            Like

          6. Of course it does. It can’t be an incompetent prosecutor. It is the jury’s fault for being able to tell the truth from the fertilizer.

            And by the way, if the jury pool is an issue, a good prosecutor would request a change of venue. It can and has been done in the past. Of course using your argument, the judge would tell the prosecutor to prove his case. PERIOD.

            Like

          7. In both of the cases Durham brought, the accused were clearly guilty, the proof was in black and white.

            But a DC jury will not convict a Democrat.

            Like

          8. “But a DC jury will not convict a Democrat.”

            Seriously? The hidden racism in that comment is plain as day to anyone here who has listen to THAT rant over the years.

            Like I said, using your argument, the change of venue request would have been laughed out of chambers. However, a COMPETENT prosecutor could have crafted an argument for the presiding judge for a change.

            ‘You blame the jury. I blame the prosecutor. And it has nothing to do with no witnesses coming forth; it has to do with a bad case.

            You claim the accused were “clearly guilty”. What makes YOU the arbiter of that? How many times have I/we been told, when calling out the OBVIOUS guilt of Trump (or one of his corrupt family members or sycophants) not true. Even though the evidence was overwhelming.

            You are the one with bias, not the citizens of DC.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Not in DC?
            Really? You going to go down that road again?

            I am a little unclear. Why is a jury in DC not able to convict a lawyer and a Russian? It cannot be protecting a fellow “deep stater” because neither defendant was that. You must think there is another reason. Or is this just a general slime since it was DC juries who have convicted your favorite violent insurrectionists?

            In reality and in spite of your slander the venue has little to do with the final outcome of this “witch hunt.” Durham failed to present a case against ANY employee of the “deep state.” The two trials he did manage to bring involved people charged with lying to the FBI. According to the juries – NOT GULTY. And, being lied to is not misconduct.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “Sounds like a jury chosen from a city where 95% of the population is dependent on big government to me.”

            One of your hand made-up facts that has nothing to do with ANY of the cases that Durham brought to trial. The defendants did not work for government. One was not even and American. Your repeated attacks on the competence of the DC jury pool smacks of poorly disguised racism sin DC is a majority black city. It really does and it makes me remember how strongly you argued that Birther lies about President Obama were not racist – just politics.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “In both of the cases Durham brought, the accused were clearly guilty, the proof was in black and white.”

            What do YOU actually know about the evidence? Did YOU attend every moment of the trial? Did YOU listen to the witnesses? Did YOU hear them cross exanined? I don’t think so. But, somehow, YOU know the jury was “corrupt” and did not follow the evidence? John Durham had members of HIS team resign because of the political motivation and weakness of the charges he was bringing. But the jury was supposed to act as a rubber stamp? What a joke you are! All of you.

            I know you people have had a lot invested in the Durham effort. Easier to believe that he would bring vindication than to admit how completely bamboozled and foolish you have been. But it is long past time to grow up and drop this DC jury bullshit and just admit – as Horowitz found and Durham could not disprove – the FBI was doing its job to minimize the role of Russia in our elections. And, as a reminder, Durham did not file ANY charges against employees of the “deep state.”

            Like

  2. There should be absolutely no doubt that if the Durham investigation had found anything, anything at all, Barr and Trump would have been proclaiming it from the highest FOX news tower in the country.

    There should also be no doubt that Russia wanted Trump to win. He was just what they needed in an American President… a not very bright, easily manipulated narcissist. One of the first things he did as President was to invite the Russian foreign minister and ambassador into the Oval Office and reveal code-word classified information to them.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html

    Code-word classified documents that are marked top secret by the countries that give us the information (in this case Israel) can not be declassified by a President… no matter how hard he thinks about it.

    If the Russians weren’t financing Trump, they certainly got a lot of things for free. And Trump isn’t known for giving away things for free.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. So Barr, Durham, Trump and friends weaponized the DOJ to investigate the weaponizing of the DOJ.

    Couldn’t find weaponization and we might now see an investigation of the investigation to investigate the weaponizing by the investigators in the Russian investigation.

    This clip explains it much more clearly:

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. I tried find a clip where in interviews political candidates. Pure double talk, but the funny part was that the politicians rarely asked what he said, but answered with a nod and talking points, as if they understood him.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s