Will U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland use anything in the Durham Report to prosecute those who interfered in the 2016 election, while executing a slow-motion coup against the duly elected president? Will any of the credulous media apologize for their willing collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign, the FBI and certain public officials (e.g., Adam Schiff?) If the events in the Durham Report happened in another country, we’d decry the corruption. Now, the usual response is being replayed again, to wit, “It’s old news, time to move on.”

Jim Manning

(4) comments


The Durham Report showed that Russia tried to interfere in the election. That Russia wanted Trump to win. That members of Trump's campaign met with Russia. That member's of Trump's campaign gave Russia information on the election.


Mr. Manning: What, exactly, in the Durham report is even remotely actionable? We await your informed opinion. In the meantime, consider this:

"Durham was appointed by the worst Attorney General in US history, Bill Barr, who expected Durham to exact vengeance on Trump's perceived enemies. Durham labored for four years to prove that Trump's investigators acted criminally—or at least wrongfully—in investigating allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"Durham personally traveled across the globe to interview witnesses. On occasion, Durham was accompanied by Bill Barr. Durham’s investigation cost $6.5 million and lasted twice as long as the Mueller investigation. (The Mueller investigation was effectively free because Mueller recovered $48 million for the US—$16 million more than the cost of the investigation.)

"Durham prosecuted two cases arising from his investigation. Both trials ended in acquittals for the defendants. After a jury acquitted one of the defendants, a juror lectured Durham for wasting the jury’s time. (In contrast, special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, obtained 8 guilty pleas, and obtained the conviction of Paul Manafort after a jury trial.)

"Durham’s report was transmitted by Attorney General Merrick Garland to Congress on Monday. Apart from Durham’s whining about the FBI’s (alleged) differential treatment of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Durham’s report revealed nothing of significance that was not already in the public record. (It is true that the FBI treated Hillary Clinton differentially: It disclosed details of its investigation into Secretary Clinton ten days before the 2016 election and leaked misleading details to the NYTimes, but kept its investigation of Trump's connections to Russia confidential until after the election.)

"The most effective way to measure whether Durham’s report uncovered any wrongdoing at the FBI is to examine what recommendations for reform were included in Durham’s report. Here is the answer:

"Durham’s report made no recommendations for reform at the FBI. Zilch. Nada. Nothing."

- Robert Hubbell, Esq.


Jim Manning: U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland doesn't have much recourse against the actions of Russia.

RetAirForceBigBlue: Go Blue!


phxnative: Well researched and stated. [tongue]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd or racist language.
Be brief Comments longer than 300 words will not be approved.
Don't Threaten.Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.