As with every major revelation proving them to be the treacherous, anti-democratic demons they are, the corporate media have instantly gone to work sweeping away the shocking conclusions of Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the FBI’s conduct as it related to its 2016 investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.
Years of work went into this thing, and the media believe all of its heinous discoveries can be set aside with a few news briefs belittling them as minor, unimpressive matters of mistake and “shortcomings.”
That’s not what Durham found. What he found was explicit bias within the world’s most powerful law enforcement agency against a democratically chosen presidential nominee.
The report, released Monday, is more than 300 pages, many of which recount information pieced together by Republicans in Congress and right-leaning journalists. But everything you need to know is in Durham’s summary, which, as tactfully as possible, describes the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Trump as not only without a foundation, but driven by political bias, dishonesty, and an appalling degree of personal animus.
The media won’t relay those facts from the report honestly because, of course, the media were complicit in the absolute con from the start. They hated Trump more than top officials at the FBI did and were more than happy to fan the flames that terrified the nation for years and irreparably crippled Trump’s entire term.
With that in mind, this is how big media described Durham’s findings versus what Durham actually said.
New York Times: “Mr. Durham’s 306-page report revealed little substantial new information about the inquiry, known as Crossfire Hurricane, and it failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations accusing the bureau of politically motivated misconduct that former President Donald J. Trump and his allies suggested Mr. Durham would uncover.”
That suggests there was no proof or even significant evidence in Durham’s report that the FBI was hounding Trump for any reason outside of standard, dry agency business. That’s false.
What the report actually said: “Our investigation … revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially … from politically affiliated persons and entities. … In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump’s political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them…”
In other words, the FBI willingly accepted allegations from Trump’s political rivals, treating them as objective data, rather than what they were: traditional campaign waste material.
Associated Press: “The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism of the FBI but few significant revelations.”
That gives the impression that Durham’s report was a symbolic reprimand of no consequence. That’s false.
Here’s from the actual report: “FBI personnel … acknowledge[d] — both then and in hindsight — that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the [Trump campaign] was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities.”
In essence, FBI agents participating in the investigation were insincere in their efforts to find a sinister link between Trump’s campaign and Russia, because they knew it wasn’t likely to exist and didn’t believe there was a reason to try finding it anyway.
USA Today: “Special counsel John Durham criticizes FBI Trump-Russia probe, but recommends no wholesale changes.”
Mistakes were made but who among us?!
That’s not what Durham said. What he said is that the FBI abandoned its mission in pursuit of a political agenda and that if it had simply followed its own rules, one of the greatest political scandals in history would have never happened.
From Durham’s report: “[T]here is a continuing need for the FBI and the [Justice] Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time.”
It’s not as if Durham is hiding the ball. He notes in his report that there were equal opportunities to investigate Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016, but those were handled more discreetly, either by alerting the candidate’s team that it might have been targeted by potential foreign influence, or by simply dropping the matter altogether. (Hey, how about that?!)
Again, from the Durham report: “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.”
In short, there was a double standard — a political one. A democracy can’t sustain this kind of scandal perpetuated by its chief law enforcers. But the media gave up on that a long time ago.
