New Durham report criticizes the FBI for investigating Dear Leader…

https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

 

Which?

 

Barr lied. Nothing out of the ordinary.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday sharply rebuked Attorney General William Barr’s handling of the special counsel’s Russia report, saying Barr had made “misleading public statements” to spin the investigation’s findings in favor of President Donald Trump and had shown a “lack of candor.”

"The scolding was unusually blunt, with Walton saying Barr had appeared to make a “calculated attempt” to influence public opinion about the report in ways favorable to Trump. The rebuke tapped into lingering criticism of Barr, from Democrats in Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller himself, that he had misrepresented some of the investigation’s most damning findings."

"In his ruling, Walton said he needed to review the entire document itself because he could not trust that the Justice Department’s redactions of the report were made properly and in good faith. The judge said it would be “disingenuous” to presume the redactions were “not tainted by Attorney General Barr’s actions and representations” throughout the process."


Judge sharply rebukes Barr's handling of Mueller report

 

I’ve never seen anyone even attempt to answer this. They supposedly create this whole fake investigation to steal the election, but then just never get around to actually using it?

And not just that, actively undermine their preferred candidate by dropping October surprise bombs on her???

It never made any sense.

 

It helps that you have an IQ that exceeds your home's thermostat setting.

 

What in the Mueller Report shows collusion between Trump and Russia? Even Mueller himself has indicted there is no evidence of that. It was a hoax that was concocted by the Democratic machine and Durham tells you exactly how it came to be in his report. You can't just speak a scam into existence. If Mueller had a shred of evidence of collusion with Russia, which would be tantamount to treason, he would have spelled that out clearly in his report and subsequent testimony to Congress. How do you explain the fact that the Democrats were talking about this before it was even a thing? And then the Steele dossier that was completely bought and paid for by the DNC. The FBI offered Steele $1,000,000 to produce any evidence of the claims and Steele had nothing. And these were the people who were trying to bury Trump. The whole thing is a scam and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, because you're too egotistical to admit when you've been scammed.

 

"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open

 

Hillary didn't think she was going to lose. She was picking out drapes for the Oval Office before the election. Using a scam to sway the election on the eve of would have been too risky and many would have likely said she was simply trying to distract from her FBI investigation. If you're convinced you have an election in the bag, you don't create a false narrative about your opponent committing treason without any evidence. That would be incredibly reckless and dumb for any candidate to do, let alone a frontrunner. This would not have helped her.

 

It does seem like conservatives are claiming this means the investigation never should have taken place, when in fact it’s just criticizing some of the procedures, correct?

 

LOL, you linked to a review of Barr's report, the one a federal judge basically said was intentionally deceptive. See post 143 for some of the judge's written pronouncements.

 

Doesn’t Durham say at the end of the report that it was reasonable to open an initial in crossfire?

what a hot mess of a report

 

Can you post where he says that?

 

Page 295. I can’t seems to cut and paste from the pdf news source

 

I think he said that if it was going to be opened, it should have only been preliminary. But as Marcy noted, that is plainly a way to say that it should have closed before Mike Flynn began lying to agents, so that he would not subject to prosecution

 

Taking a screenshot of the relevant section and pasting it into a post works for me. For example, on Mac:

 

Didn’t want to do one of those accidentally show my tab bar fauxpaws

 

'They can get you six ways from Sunday' seems pretty accurate in this case.

 

No, it doesn't say that.

 

Column: Why Special Counsel John Durham's report takes so long to say so little

 

Dirty is very kind. It's treason. Twitter laid off 90% of its staff and works fine, better even. Same will be true of the Federal bureaucracy.