If You Read The Report…

Durham tried to send people to jail. He lost both cases he took to trial.

But all that manufactured outrage has to go somewhere, apparently. https://t.co/KO8aFnxRi1

— Jay McKenzie (@jamesfourm) May 16, 2023

It answers this objection:

Conducting this investigation required us to consider U.S. criminal laws, the Constitutional protections our system provides to individuals, and the high burden placed on the government to prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, the law does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute. Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent - not mere negligence or recklessness- before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find him or her guilty of a crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek criminal charges. 

And then there's the fact the Office went 0-2 in trials trying to establish crimes.  Considering how much advantage the prosecution has in criminal trials, that's an extremely bad record.

There's also the other fact that the Office didn't recommend any "censure or disciplinary action" against any individuals, in this report.

So....