So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.
No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....
No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....
Calm down you whacky buffoon….Pour yourself a drink and enjoy life….Everything’s gonna be alright…..Deleted
He does seem wound a little too tight.Calm down you whacky buffoon….Pour yourself a drink and enjoy life….Everything’s gonna be alright…..
Sickie is a woman…He does seem wound a little too tight.
With a testosterone overload.Sickie is a woman…
Not exactly.So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.
No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....
Did the Russians commit a crime which benefitted the Trump campaign?Not exactly.
Per CNN, this is what the reports findings:
Takeaways from special counsel John Durham’s report on FBI’s Russia-Trump probe
Durham finds FBI rushed to investigate Trump
Claims FBI had no real evidence of collusion before launching probe
Claims of FBI personnel bias
Durham claims FBI had different standards for Trump and Clinton
FBI failed to corroborate Steele dossier allegations
Complete text: Takeaways from special counsel John Durham's report on FBI's Russia-Trump probe | CNN Politics
You can agree or disagree with what is in the report, it will not matter to me. Your claim that there was "no politicization of the FBI", however, is contrary to the claims made in the report - They conclude the opposite, at least according to CNN.
It is important to be accurate about these things...Spreading false or misleading information helps no one.
I make no claims as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Durham report.Did the Russians commit a crime which benefitted the Trump campaign?
Isn't that alone reason to investigate both the Russian activities and the hundred or so contacts between the campaign and Russian officials?
Your post cites Durham's claims as the takeaways...those are his opinions...not facts.I make no claims as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Durham report.
I do claim that you asserted was false. I backed it up with sourced material.
Focus.
That is CNNs reporting on the Durham reports findings.Your post cites Durham's claims as the takeaways...those are his opinions...not facts.
are sure he exonerated the FBI? I can't find any quotes from him to that effect.So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.
No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....
"Durham claims" the FBI had different standards.That is CNNs reporting on the Durham reports findings.
Per CNN "Durham claims FBI had different standards for Trump and Clinton"...By any reasonable standard, that would constitute a political bias by the FBI.
CNN also stated: Claims FBI had no real evidence of collusion before launching probe
You stated:
So after four years his bottom line is that they shouldn't have investigated the accusation that there was collusion.
No criminal acts, no politicization of the FBI....
That may be how you feel, but it is not what the Durham report concluded, and any representation that it did is patently false.
You stand corrected.
Are you sure I wrote the report exonerated the FBI? I can't find any quotes in my posts that would validate that.are sure he exonerated the FBI? I can't find any quotes from him to that effect.
Yes. That is what Durham claims."Durham claims" the FBI had different standards.
"Durham claims" the FBI had no real evidence of collusion.
Since when was "real" evidence needed for an investigation? They knew there had been a crime. They knew it benefited the Trump campaign for president. Trump said he felt there was bias in the investigation of Trump...he didn't say by whom.
I said there was no evidence of criminal acts. If you disagree...when will we see indictments based on Durham's report?
By the way...I didn't say the Durham report concluded no crime and no politicization. I said he failed to prove it.
So let me ask you....since Durham said the FBI should not have begun the investigation until they'd investigated the Steele report...are you beginning to see the irony?
Why would I? Durham is a Trump loyalist who has found nothing new in four years. His claims are clearly his opinions. It is silly to argue that an investigation must already have evidence of the crime before any investigation begins. He also claims the FBI should have investigated the Steele dossier before they began the investigation into the Russian hack of the DNC and release of emails. Since the Russian criminal act benefited Trump...why in hell wouldn't they investigate?Yes. That is what Durham claims.
You may claim differently if you wish, but you can't attribute it to the Durham Report. That would be dishonest.
let me quote from your top post: "no politicization of the FBI.... "Are you sure I wrote the report exonerated the FBI? I can't find any quotes in my posts that would validate that.
Wow...look up the word "Exonerate".let me quote from your top post: "no politicization of the FBI.... "
you may wish to schedule a visit with a healthcare professional if you cannot recall what you put in 2 sentence post.
Are his claims opinions, like Mueller's claims are opinions? After all, just because Mueller says his report does not exonerate, isn't his application of the word simply his opinion considering no criminal trial was ever brought nor adjudicated?Why would I? Durham is a Trump loyalist who has found nothing new in four years. His claims are clearly his opinions. It is silly to argue that an investigation must already have evidence of the crime before any investigation begins. He also claims the FBI should have investigated the Steele dossier before they began the investigation into the Russian hack of the DNC and release of emails. Since the Russian criminal act benefited Trump...why in hell wouldn't they investigate?