What does the Durham Report prove?

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 13
Topic's author
#1
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
In the wake of the Trump indictment the "weaponization of the federal government" claims continue to be made as if it's just a proven non-controversial fact on the political right. I haven't sat down to read all 330+ pages yet but am really curious to see if there is anyone on this site who can explain how this report proves anything.

In my research looking at what others have had to say about the report this article from the Atlantic seems to put my findings best:

Rather than endorse the theory of a global anti-Trump conspiracy, Durham settles into a long bill of grievances against the FBI. The agency’s methods, he argues, were too aggressive; its agents were too ready to believe the worst about Trump. The FBI had only enough information to justify a preliminary investigation, not a full one—a distinction the report carefully parses for some pages. This, in the end, is the gravamen of the Durham report: The FBI overreacted to the available information about Trump’s Russia contacts and should have moved more cautiously before advancing to the next phase of an investigation.
 
What the report says is in essence a classic Miranda-rights criminal defense of a kind that conservatives dislike when it benefits a mugger or a car thief: “The cops messed up in this way or that, and therefore my client must go free, even though we all know he did exactly what he is accused of.”
From everything I have seen and heard, this article nails it. Here's a counter article from the Hill titled "Durham Report: The FBI is as bad as you feared, maybe worse" which begins by proclaiming that the conspiracy theorists were right. Yet there is absolutely nothing in this article supporting that assertion. The worst thing it mentions are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages and some guy who falsified a document.

Is this really it? Is this really what the political right thinks proves an agency of the federal government has been weaponized?
#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It proved just as much as the Mueller report.

Which is why people are revolting against a government that has no accountability.

In the past, corrupt government manufactured multiple scapegoats to convince the people. Today, they don't even pretend it is necessary to do that to maintain power and control.

#3
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
That the FBI is corrupted, along with many other aspects of the federal government. 
Topic's author
#4
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
It proved just as much as the Mueller report.
Which is what exactly?

A lot, in which case you failed to provide a single example.

Or nothing, in which case you clearly do not know anything about the Mueller report.
Topic's author
#5
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
That the FBI is corrupted, along with many other aspects of the federal government. 
I addressed this vague assertion already in the OP. Do you have any substance to add here?

And if you're too lazy to write your own words, since I'm the one seeking information here I'd actually be willing to watch one of your videos (provided you explain what I'm supposed to be looking for and at what point in the video)
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
A lot, in which case you failed to provide a single example.

Or nothing, in which case you clearly do not know anything about the Mueller report.
As regards to Trump or the FBI, nothing criminal was proven with either.

One had a lot of Orangemanbad and the other had a lot of FBImanbad.

Same story, different characters.
#7
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
As regards to Trump or the FBI, nothing criminal was proven with either.
For Trump, he refused to be questioned under oath. So did his son Don Jr.

Other people like Roger Stone lied for Trump, was convicted of lying and was pardoned by Trump who is the guy they were lying for.

Mueller said the response to Trump’s actions required a political solution, i.e. impeachment, but Republicans we’re more concerned with their political prospects, so they resisted impeachment.

Trump welcomed the Russian interference, even making requests for help on TV and defending foreign involvement in our elections on TV.
Mueller couldn’t prove collusion because the people in Trump’s circle who knew about it kept quiet and waited for a pardon on the crimes they could be convicted for. This removed the leverage Mueller had with witnesses.  The Russians involved are hiding in Russia beyond the reach of the U.S. Justice department.

Remind me what the meeting with Russians in Trump Tower was about.

Didn’t Trump’s campaign share their internal polling data with a known Russian operative? 

#8
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
One had a lot of Orangemanbad
That’s just like mustacheman bad in the 1920s. 

Topic's author
#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
As regards to Trump or the FBI, nothing criminal was proven with either.
The Meuller report listed 11 counts of obstruction of justice by Trump as well as the indictments of 34 individuals and 3 Russian businesses.

But nope, nothing criminal to see here. Cause reality be damned.

As far as criminality proved but the Durham Report? Well, let's go back to the Atlantic;

Dan Crenshaw, for example, is a rising leader in the Republican Party—one who has always kept some moral and political distance from Trump, and who is firmly anchored to the pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin side of the GOP House caucus. Yet even he tweetedafter Durham:

"I’ve never been a reactive “lock ’em up” type. But this Durham report is a lock ’em up moment. We should be looking for statutes that apply to these egregious violations of public trust. If they don’t exist, it’s time we create them so it never happens again."

Similarly, Nikki Haley, the former UN ambassador and a candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination, today demanded retaliation against the FBI: “If we can’t hold the FBI accountable for the Russian hoax, we are no different from South Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo. This type of corruption should never happen in America.”

Crenshaw’s and Haley’s menacing but vague language makes clear that they both understand there’s almost certainly no statute to invoke here. They are not calling for measures consistent with the rule of law but are instead appealing to dark fantasies of cultural revenge.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The Meuller report listed 11 counts of obstruction of justice by Trump
"there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump."
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
-Mueller

Also. Trump was later exonerated after his failed political impeachment over obstruction.

Turns out that Trumpmanbad alone doesn't justify the intent to obstruct justice.

as well as the indictments of 34 individuals and 3 Russian businesses.
Not Trump.

Crenshaw’s and Haley’s menacing but vague language makes clear that they both understand there’s almost certainly no statute to invoke here. They are not calling for measures consistent with the rule of law but are instead appealing to dark fantasies of cultural revenge.
So you agree, FBImanbad isn't evidence of criminal intent.

#11
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,130
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” 
Right. Trump wouldn’t testify under oath. Because he was President at the time he couldn’t be made to testify under oath, even if all he did was plead the 5th as he has done hundreds of times since leaving office.

He needed to be impeached in order for the Justice Department to charge him but the Republicans wouldn’t do their job.

Not Trump.
These were the people who colluded with the Trump campaig, including Manafort and Stone.

Also. Trump was later exonerated after his failed political impeachment over obstruction.
Exonerated by who exactly?
Topic's author
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
"there were “difficult [legal] issues that would need to be resolved,” in order to reach a conclusion that the crime of obstruction of justice was committed by Trump."
"Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
-Mueller
Wow, talk about gas lighting.

Here's the full part of that second quote;

“[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

So "that judgement" in the second quote is referring to the conclusion that the president didn't commit a crime. In other words, 'we can't call him innocent'. Yet you dishonestly cut out the rest to make it look like the opposite.

I expected better, even from you.

Trump was later exonerated after his failed political impeachment over obstruction.
Yep, Trump was exonerated by house and senate republicans, because that's how exoneration works. Ok bro.


#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Wow, talk about gas lighting.
I expected better, even from you
I didn't mean to put those so close together. The Mueller report is outdated and irrelevant anyway as we now know Russiagate was real and the investigation into Trump collusion was a political hit job based on a falsified report that the FBI knew was false. A dossier Clinton paid Steele to produce out of whole cloth.

What Mueller judged as possible obstruction is now known as justified pushback against a lie. Had Mueller known at the time that Russiagate was a fraudulent investigation, he wouldn't have ascribed malicious intent to justified self-defense.

There has to be justified remedies when the FBI fraudulently operates under an intent of malfeasance. If those remedies don't exist, even for Trump, then we should immediately dismantle the FBI and start over; as the existing paradigm where the FBI frequently coerces elected officials both openly and covertly would make reform impossible.