The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part II

The headline in the USA Today clearly had a different perspective from the New York Times:  "Durham blasts FBI for 2016 Trump-Russia probe."  Right off, the paper gives us this quote from the Durham report:  "Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department (of Justice) and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report."  The question is why?

Why did the agents and Department officials fail to adhere to the law?  Might it be because of their overwhelming anti-Trump bias.  The USA Today:  "Durham said the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane based on 'unevaluated evidence' at the direction of former deputy director Andrew McCabe and former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence Peter Strzok, who 'at a minimum, has pronounced hostile feelings toward Trump.'"  

And then there is this damning statement in the Durham report:  "...neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation."  But, why would they need evidence if the goal was to get Trump?  

And the report told us this:  "The speed and manner in which the FBI opened and investigated Crossfire Hurricane during the presidential election season based on raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence also reflected a noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans aimed at the Clinton campaign."  Another example of how Trump was treated differently from Clinton.  Who is surprised?  Good for the USA Today for demonstrating a willingness to report a harsher assessment of the actions taken by the FBI than the New York Times was willing to do; an assessment reflected in the Durham report.  But the New York Times was all in with regards to Russian collusion, and attacking Trump.  It is clear that the Times is not about to back off now.

Finally, here is the headline that was in the local paper, the Ventura County Star, on May 17:  "Durham:  FBI's Trump-Russia probe flawed."  The paper also notes that "the FBI has also long since announced dozens of corrective actions."  And, in responding to the report, The FBI said this:  "Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented."  Missteps?  The FBI is being too kind to itself.  

Meanwhile, the paper reports that House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jim Jordan, has invited Durham to testify.  

Here is my concern.  Any system of government still depends on people of good will.  No matter how many rules are put in place, it depends on people willing to do what is right.  However, our country is so divided, that people at the highest levels of federal agencies inappropriately expressed negative attitudes towards Trump, and then acted on those attitudes.  People in the mainstream media justified their biased reporting because they believed Trump had to be stopped.  So they acted as advocates, rather than acting as reporters and journalists.  Will anything change, especially if Trump turns out to be the 2024 Republican nominee for president?     

The Durham Report - A Nothingburger? Part I

(A note.  I have not read the 306 page report, dealing with the investigation into the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation by the FBI into the Trump campaign and Russia.  The comments in these posts are taken from various media reports, and where obvious, are my own.  Additionally, I have never used the expression "nothingburger," either in conversation or in writing.  I am generally not a fan of words or expressions that become a fad, and then fade away.  However, in this case, based upon reading various sources, it seemed to be an appropriate usage.)

Here was the headline in the May 17 New York Times:  "After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver."  The Times reports that "no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official" was charged with a crime.  They do acknowledge that the report found the F.B.I. guilty of "confirmation bias."  And:  "There were real-world flaws with the Russia investigation, especially how the F.B.I. botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser."  Botched?  How about lied in the warrant application.  

The Times then reverts to the earlier report of the DOJ's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, saying he found "no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated."  Not politically motivated?  Then what is the "confirmation bias?"  And what about the text messages between Peter Strzok, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, and FBI attorney Lisa Page?  Text messages discussing how to prevent Trump from becoming president.  And what about the discussions they had in the office of Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI?   

The Times does acknowledge that Strzok cautioned about use of the Steele dossier, and that it "should be viewed as intended to influence as well as inform," and that the source was "presumed to be connected to the (Clinton) campaign in some way."  But that did not prevent the FBI was citing the dossier in their warrant applications.  

The Times does offer a quote from the head of Judicial Watch:  "Never in American history has so much government corruption faced so little accountability."  

The Wall Street Journal had a different take in their May 17 editorial.  They cite the fact that the FBI had no "actual evidence of collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign.  The Journal further asserts that "not a single U.S. agency had evidence of collusion."  Then why did the FBI open an investigation?  The Journal says the Durham report claimed a "clear predisposition" to open the investigation based on a "prejudice against Trump," and "pronounced hostile feelings."  

And the Journal tells us this:  "The FBI gave a Clinton representative a 'defensive briefing' about the risks of foreign actors.  Mr. Trump received no such briefing."  The Journal then asserts that "...the FBI probe that disrupted American politics for three years may have begun as a Russian intelligence operation," as there may have been connections between Steele and Russian agents.  Which would not be surprising as Steele was not only a former British MI6 agent, but was in charge of the Russia desk there.  And there is no doubt that the dossier was opposition research conducted on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The Journal:  "All of this is an indictment of officials who were supposed to supervise the FBI," such as AG Loretta Lynch and Deputy AG Sally Yates.  The Journal tells us that the FBI has since "implemented dozens of corrective actions," which, had they been in place at the time, would have "prevented" these events from happening.  Why were such corrective actions necessary, unless FBI agents were acting outside of their legal responsibilities, based on an anti-Trump bias?    

Finally, acknowledging the obvious anti-Trump bias of the mainstream media, the Journal says this:  "The press corps was also an all-too-willing accomplice to the collusion con, yet there has been little to no outrage or even self-reflection at having been played for dupes.  Most coverage largely dismisses the Durham report because no one new was indicted."  

I take issue with the Journal's comment that the mainstream media was "played for dupes," but agree that they were "all-too-willing accomplices."  The media's hatred for Trump was, and continues to be, obvious.  That many in high levels of government had the same hatred for Trump, made the Russian collusion story possible.  And the mainstream media made sure that the story had legs.  It is impossible for this writer to believe that there was no political motivation behind the Russian collusion narrative.