I’m a little surprised that so many media types are trying to amplify John Durham’s nothingburger of a probe — which, remember, ended with no charges. Morning Joe gave the report the shredding it deserved, but you wouldn’t know that if you turned on CNN:
Here’s Jake Tapper, treating this mess as if it actually proved anything:
CNN’s new scandal:@jaketapper says the Durham Report is “devastating to the FBI”
It isn’t. Not even close. No charges, just partisan “conclusions.” And Tapper of the new non-journalistic Chris Licht CNN is propagandizing
Jake Tapper needs to resign pic.twitter.com/EcJo6qwfA3
— Keith Olbermann↙️ (@KeithOlbermann) May 15, 2023
Nicolle Wallace did do her usual due diligence and concluded the opposite of Tapper:
Nicolle Wallace fact-checks the Durham report in real-time, “Now that finding by Mr. Durham is contradicted by DOJ’s own I.G. Mr. Horowitz in 2019 who found that investigation was opened, was predicated, it was necessary and then there was no bias.” pic.twitter.com/KDjDNrudWp
— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) May 15, 2023
Rhonda Santis with the usual:
The Durham Report confirmed what we already knew: weaponized federal agencies manufactured a false conspiracy theory about Trump-Russia collusion. It reminds us of the need to clean house at these agencies, as they’ve never been held accountable for this egregious abuse of power.
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantisFL) May 15, 2023
Sarah Sanders, still lying:
Mueller and the media put our country through hell and the Durham report is a vindication of President Trump and those of us who said all along it was a partisan witch hunt. An abuse of power and media failure of historic proportions, those responsible must be held accountable.
— Sarah Huckabee Sanders (@SarahHuckabee) May 16, 2023
Brit Hume, still braindead:
The Durham report should be a sobering rebuke to far too many journalists who swallowed the Steele dossier and the FBI’s improperly based investigation of its wild claims. Think of all those stories about how much of the bogus dossier had been vindicated. None of it was.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) May 15, 2023
This guy, still creating his own reality:
Criminal Mind!!
Trump rages about John Durham report in an all-caps rant calling Mueller’s Russia probe ‘treason!’ https://t.co/3hRNc7wEr6
— Badd Company (@BaddCompani) May 15, 2023
Marcy Wheeler takes it apart:
Others:
Biggs: Let’s also talk about The Durham Report
McGovern: I don’t see any indictments. A number of you said there would be multiple indictments. Did I miss something? Were there indictments? pic.twitter.com/qyP83w41bj— Acyn (@Acyn) May 15, 2023
Favorite part is Durham hammering Peter Schweizer book as “unverified hearsay information.” Chozick and Haberman take note! (They won’t).
— Tom Watson (@tomwatson) May 15, 2023
LOL: not only are there NO CHARGES filed in the Durham Report for the opening of the Russia Probe, there aren’t even any recommendations for what the FBI could do differently. Just this one paragraph on the last page that isn’t even new. pic.twitter.com/uAX0NPQgik
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) May 15, 2023
CNN is trying to spin the Durham report as ‘exonerating Trump’ and has swallowed Durham’s spittle in declaring it ‘devastating to the FBI’. Durham billed DOJ for 4 years & flew around Europe w Bill Barr stuffing their faces with carpaccio on USA’s dime & produced jacksh*t.@CNN
— NoelCaslerComedy🌙 (@caslernoel) May 15, 2023
The Durham Report is a political hatchet job. The only thing more pathetic is the outcome of his prosecutions.
It retreads the same material that both Mueller and the IG found to justify the opening of the 2016 Russia investigation.
Why the different outcome?
2 main reasons:
— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) May 15, 2023
Once you get past Special Counsel Durham’s bluster, you find these conclusions, which are actually related to the mandate in his appointment order:
No evidence sufficient to demonstrate violations of criminal law, no evidence, acquittal, no evidence. pic.twitter.com/KsYHZcS9kz
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 15, 2023
That’s my point. It was Durham’s job to prosecute. He tried with Sussman (who was acquitted). That was a farce and Durham ended up getting scolded by the judge for creating a “sideshow” by including information unrelated to his case as a means of laundering it to Fox News. https://t.co/cGyB7pyAYO
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 15, 2023
Then Durham tried it with Igor Danchenko, but Durham used the exact same trial strategy that had just failed him in the Sussman trial, and lo and behold, the jury acquitted Danchenko too.
Gosh. I’m starting to have questions about John Durham’s judgment . . .
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 15, 2023
But it seems that Special Counsel Durham does not share ex-Rep. Nunes’ belief that DOJ interfered with his work.
From his cover letter to AG Garland: pic.twitter.com/6MBvQPZhMl
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 15, 2023
