Down The Memory Hole

I’ll be interested to see how Durham argues that there was no predication in the Russia probe when the DOJ’s OIG found the opposite AND a Republican-led Senate Intel Committee found that Trump’s campaign manager was, in fact, in frequent contact with a Russian intel officer 🤔

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 15, 2023

Not sure who needs to hear this, but Crossfire Hurricane was not an investigation into Trump. It was an investigation into Russian intelligence activity, and whether that activity was targeting people in Trump’s campaign (it was)

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 15, 2023

This might also be a good time to remind everyone that Mueller brought charges against 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. (aka election interference) as a result of the Russia probe. (which Bill Barr dropped) https://t.co/MKc4rv0jKC

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 15, 2023

Yes, Bill Barr is the reason you don't remember those prosecutions.

Mueller rightfully resisted using the term "collusion," which has no legal meaning in this context, instead focusing on conspiracy law.

Durham's report comes out and says there is "no actual evidence of collusion," a media soundbite, not a legal conclusion.

What a contrast.

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) May 15, 2023

The stink of mendacity.

1/ Cut through the hype and cut to the chase of the #DurhamReport:

Durham says it would have been a "sensible step" for the FBI to open Crossfire Hurricane as a preliminary investigation.

It comes way at the end — page 295.👇

I just discussed w/@ErinBurnett @OutFrontCNN. pic.twitter.com/rDn4lbzS3E

— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) May 15, 2023

I'm down to focussing on the black and white of this "report."

100% accurate:
& DOJ Inspector General found after his exhaustive investigation that the @FBI had cause pursuant to law and FBI policy to open an investigation: https://t.co/iXPBEA1IeV

— Prof. John McLaughlin (@Harvard1988) May 16, 2023

Like, after four years, Durham still can't nail down the facts of his investigation:

I cite Fox only because the fact that one *was* given used to be evidence of a conspiracy. Now the claim is that one *wasn't* given and that's why Trump was treated differently? Here is the FBI's own write up of the briefing (from Politico) https://t.co/ZcnTgT0OCD

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 16, 2023

Bipartisan Senate report. https://t.co/DSb8dtfwVL pic.twitter.com/vBckxgtu2P

— Hieronymus McGillicuddy (@HieronymusMcG) May 16, 2023

The thrust of Durham’s report is that the FBI should have been more OVERT in its investigative steps. Which would have been more detrimental to Trump — D acknowledges that the FBI was trying to be covert in order not to impact election. This was damned if you damned if you don’t

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) May 16, 2023

And there's this contrast to an actual competent prosecutor (not that I haven't known a few to blame anyone but themselves for failure; but to put it in writing....):

Note when Durham describes the literally true claim and the four alleged false statements for which he charged Danchenko, he doesn't refer to them as "alleged," not even after getting his ass handed to him.

If I'm Danchenko I sue DOJ for that. pic.twitter.com/79HOWmpRk5

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 16, 2023