Durham report spotlights how Clinton campaign helped create the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory

How many of you who have commented on the recently released Durham Report in this thread have actually read the text and associated evidence? I get it..three hundred - plus pages of lawyerese isn't appealling. Does the confirmation of inter-agency bias ( either by direct or via material omission of important facts in the investigative policies and/ or procedures ) outlined in the final report mean anything? Or is it just a continuation episode of the  proverbial deep state right vs left theater? Do documented instances of said biases in the report restore faith and support in our governmental institutions/ agencies for you ( I'd ask that you forget which side you're on when considering that..if at all possible).  

Read the text if you're honestly interested/ invested in this issue and then honestly assess what Durham concluded. In effect, it was a nothing burger in terms of potential indictments and / or prosecutions..and it was rather weakly worded and presented..and for the life of me ( other than the swamp depth), I can't figure out why after reading the evidence in the report. For me, it unmasked an egregious and  multi-faceted machine designed to support one-sided power structures; and it certainly does not present the leadership of the FBI, DOJ, CIA and others in a positive light with regard to fairness. You can refer to that opinion as just another conservative conspiracy theory if ya want..I don't care and that's my take.  For those on the left in here, there'll be some point in the future where the same brood of chickens will come home to roost for your side if these bias tendencies continue in our governmental agencies and institutions...though I don't know in what form or when. 

Just in case...

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

Arrivedouche....

In other words - the Democrats, FBI, DOJ, CIA, Twitter, Facebook,and the corrupt media all colluded to defeat President Trump by brainwashing the gullible American public - and it worked. America is in the throes of scripted DemocRat ruination of all that America was built on and stood for - and these traitors continue with laying waste to our once great nation. As President Trump has repeatedly said, they are not after him - they are after all Americans.

David Miller's typically deranged response, oddly enough, provides you with an answer to your question--or at least, your implied question. What was it all about?

It was essentially a nothingburger, effectively giving neither side what it wanted. It didn't uncover naked, glowing, pulsating evidence of the machinations of the Deep State having conspired against the noble President-For-Life Donald J. Trump the Magnificent--so conservitards were disappointed. It didn't cover the FBI in glory, finding that its investigations were perfect and unimpeachable--so humans (liberals) were disappointed.

But anyone familiar with this inquiry's origins shouldn't have expected anything else. After all, it was launched by Trump officials--particularly Bill Blob Barr! Was it ever going to be meaningful? What it was, at least originally, was an attempt to "prove" that Trump's collusion with Russia was nothing but a liberal hoax. Then it evolved into an attempt to prove that it actually happened--while the person who was guilty was still able to completely obstruct the investigation!

So I actually did read the damn thing...and my conclusion is that no one covered themselves with glory, but the whole mess had very little chance no matter what, given the diametrically opposed goals of the two sides: 1. Exonerate Trump 2. Hang Trump. I consider it cryingly obvious that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and who they wanted to win. I also consider it obvious that Clinton would have won without that interference.

NOW...that said, I don't think there's indictable evidence that Trump's campaign goons actually thought of that until after the fact. Yes, there's evidence that a few of them actively tried, but how much and how hard? Unclear. And I doubt that Trump was smart enough to think of it himself.

And anyone who thinks that the Russians didn't fuck and haven't been fucking with us for decades ain't living in the real world. And do they have a favorite in every American election down to and including local dogcatcher and a willingness to use whatever resources they have to influence the outcome? You betcha! And Charles...you can say that maybe they wanted Obama in 2008/2012 and they put their finger on the scale then. Maybe so! We don't know for certain.

I think what bothers me most is that Trump's quite successful and quite illegal efforts to fuck with this investigation went completely unpunished. And the question, "If you're as innocent as you claim, why did you interfere with the investigation so avidly?" never was posed to the Turd,

Charles "lots-of-words" Higgins challenges us to read the entire 300-page report. Okay, Charles, that's a deal, I'll read every sentence, every word, every syllable. All you have to do is convince me that Durham is a trustworthy reporter of the facts. 

So let's take a look-see at Durham's credibility, shall we? First, he was assigned to investigate the "Crime of the Century" by Trump and he gave no push-back to that description. Then his top deputy - the one Durham had chosen - resigned because Durham was behaving unethically. Then the top prosecutor in his first case resigned because he felt they didn't have a case. (And he was right!) Then Durham prosecuted two cases, and in a world where federal prosecutors usually bat 1.000, 24 out of 24 jurors said Durham had nothing.

And Durham did all of the above while spending $6.5 million of taxpayer money.

So, Charles, I'm sure you wouldn't advocate spending hours reading something from a non-credible source. So convince me! If you want, you could start with "The Durham Report should be trusted because..."

Your turn, Charles.

Early on, Durham says he’s not proposing “any wholesale changes” in FBI or DOJ policies. “The answer is not the creation of new rules, but a renewed fidelity to the old,” Durham writes.

In other words, a nothing burger.

“Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates,” he writes, “it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia.” -Durham

The "Crime of the Century" apparently had no criminals?  

Dont worry Charles - the fact that the investigation yielded a giant goose egg wont stop Republicans from running on it.   

Remember Bengazhi ?

So..you just despise Durham and Trump ( among others and their credibility). That's the end of it. Your prerogative. I don't know Durham's level of credibility, though I'm aware he's been in DC most of his life.. What you referred to isn't likely enough to completely discount his potential and true ethics/ honor. You didn't answer my questions either ( regarding the report's evidence of bias..direct and indirect). You think it was all fair..totally based on factual evidence? I don't think so.That's the end of that. *l*

As usual, we haven't solved squat..but that's cool. 

Litigation 101....

Step 1) If there is enough evidence for a judge to issue a warrant there can be an indictment

Step 2) If there is enough evidence to show motive and means there  can be a trial

Step 3) If there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt there can be  a conviction of guilt.

Durham's 6.5 million investigation  couldnt even yield  step 1. 

But otherwise it was a peach !