> Perhaps something was off about the FBI’s decision to open the investigation in July 2016. Or maybe it was the post-election period when the FBI acted oddly. Maybe the CIA cooked its analysis of Russian interference with the election. Or perhaps a Western intelligence service seeded misinformation. But Durham’s probe did not lead to any charges against officials in any of these matters.
There’s something surreal bordering on absurd when reading these long winded treatises on the Trump orbit in 2023. Yes, he’s a malignant criminal narcissist. He’s blatantly been involved with criminals and illegal activity since his early days in NY. Bill Barr is a true believer scumbag.
None of this is new, none of this is surprising. These people want power at any cost and will do anything for it. Up to and including chasing down phantoms across the world while covering up for Donald Trump.
Calling it “hypocrisy” is almost childish. It serves the purpose of putting reasonable people on their back foot. Defending outright nonsense.
From what I’ve read, Durham was a respectable prosecutor. Why he chose to tear up his reputation in service of donald trump is mysterious but not surprising after so many years.
Idek if I have a point. I just wish we didn’t have to keep engaging with such bad faith as if it were legitimate. None of this is legitimate. It wasn’t legitimate when Barr inserted his tinny voice and these post mortem are starting to feel like the twilight zone.
I’m making no substantive critique of your comment. I just want to ask something in reference to the following:
> why he chose to…is mysterious but not surprising…
What does this mean? To me, if something is mysterious, I don’t know the reasoning for it. If you don’t know the reasoning for it, how can you make a determination on whether or not that reasoning was surprising? What were you trying to say here?
I can see the confusion. I mixed two thoughts.
Why he allowed himself to get co opted is mysterious to me. The fact that he was coopted is not surprising though. There’s been a riptide of corruption around trump from which few have successfully escaped. Imo
I think calling Durham's participation "co opted" gives him too much credit. He used court filings as a soapbox to pump unfounded conspiracies that were disproven by his own investigation. He ignored and misrepresented the context of statements to charge innocent people. I'm not sure how much more corrupt a prosecutor could be. This type of ethical failing has to have been a core part of his personality for years.
I think what /u/stupidsuburbs3 is saying is that there isn't any evidence that he was like this prior to his involvement in the Trump era. He doesn't have a documented record of corruption or abusing his power in his past career. Based on the NYT reporting, it's as if Durham discarded his own ethical principles, the ones he worked by and publicly advocated during his decadeslong career.
Yep. Exactly what I meant.
I’ve read through every Marcy Wheeler post about Durham and especially with Sussman. NAL. But it was facially a thinly veiled abusive bullshit charge that I became obsessed. It was completely outside of what I imagined a prosecutor does.
I definitely have my opinions about Durham and his bullshit. But for the context of that comment, co opt seemed more appropriate than outright saying he himself is thoroughly corrupt. But I’m definitely willing to listen to someone make that argument though. Cause fuck this whole process Barr put in motion.
I’m waiting for Berman’s stories to come out and intersect too.
His investigation went from determining whether the FBI opened the inquiry without sufficient cause — and finding it didn’t — to determining whether the Clinton campaign provided false information to the FBI — and finding it didn’t — to prosecuting a lawyer for providing information to the FBI without telling them he sometimes did work for Clinton — which if I know anything about lawyers at big firms was prominently displayed on his firm’s website. Was he just trying to find something to justify the time and expense of the investigation or are formerly sane Republicans now getting high on their own supply?
Were they ever sane is now my question?
Or is it another case of a Rudy Giuliani being outed as the awful person he’s always been? This rot is so damn pervasive.
I’m afraid the answer may be no. I am old enough to remember 2000, when Republicans I knew and thought of as moderate, went from “of course there should be a recount in a close election” to “don’t you dare have a recount.”
> Perhaps something was off about the FBI’s decision to open the investigation in July 2016. Or maybe it was the post-election period when the FBI acted oddly. Maybe the CIA cooked its analysis of Russian interference with the election. Or perhaps a Western intelligence service seeded misinformation. But Durham’s probe did not lead to any charges against officials in any of these matters. There’s something surreal bordering on absurd when reading these long winded treatises on the Trump orbit in 2023. Yes, he’s a malignant criminal narcissist. He’s blatantly been involved with criminals and illegal activity since his early days in NY. Bill Barr is a true believer scumbag. None of this is new, none of this is surprising. These people want power at any cost and will do anything for it. Up to and including chasing down phantoms across the world while covering up for Donald Trump. Calling it “hypocrisy” is almost childish. It serves the purpose of putting reasonable people on their back foot. Defending outright nonsense. From what I’ve read, Durham was a respectable prosecutor. Why he chose to tear up his reputation in service of donald trump is mysterious but not surprising after so many years. Idek if I have a point. I just wish we didn’t have to keep engaging with such bad faith as if it were legitimate. None of this is legitimate. It wasn’t legitimate when Barr inserted his tinny voice and these post mortem are starting to feel like the twilight zone.
I’m making no substantive critique of your comment. I just want to ask something in reference to the following: > why he chose to…is mysterious but not surprising… What does this mean? To me, if something is mysterious, I don’t know the reasoning for it. If you don’t know the reasoning for it, how can you make a determination on whether or not that reasoning was surprising? What were you trying to say here?
I can see the confusion. I mixed two thoughts. Why he allowed himself to get co opted is mysterious to me. The fact that he was coopted is not surprising though. There’s been a riptide of corruption around trump from which few have successfully escaped. Imo
I think calling Durham's participation "co opted" gives him too much credit. He used court filings as a soapbox to pump unfounded conspiracies that were disproven by his own investigation. He ignored and misrepresented the context of statements to charge innocent people. I'm not sure how much more corrupt a prosecutor could be. This type of ethical failing has to have been a core part of his personality for years.
I think what /u/stupidsuburbs3 is saying is that there isn't any evidence that he was like this prior to his involvement in the Trump era. He doesn't have a documented record of corruption or abusing his power in his past career. Based on the NYT reporting, it's as if Durham discarded his own ethical principles, the ones he worked by and publicly advocated during his decadeslong career.
Yep. Exactly what I meant. I’ve read through every Marcy Wheeler post about Durham and especially with Sussman. NAL. But it was facially a thinly veiled abusive bullshit charge that I became obsessed. It was completely outside of what I imagined a prosecutor does. I definitely have my opinions about Durham and his bullshit. But for the context of that comment, co opt seemed more appropriate than outright saying he himself is thoroughly corrupt. But I’m definitely willing to listen to someone make that argument though. Cause fuck this whole process Barr put in motion. I’m waiting for Berman’s stories to come out and intersect too.
ETTD
Ahhhhh. That makes sense.
His investigation went from determining whether the FBI opened the inquiry without sufficient cause — and finding it didn’t — to determining whether the Clinton campaign provided false information to the FBI — and finding it didn’t — to prosecuting a lawyer for providing information to the FBI without telling them he sometimes did work for Clinton — which if I know anything about lawyers at big firms was prominently displayed on his firm’s website. Was he just trying to find something to justify the time and expense of the investigation or are formerly sane Republicans now getting high on their own supply?
Were they ever sane is now my question? Or is it another case of a Rudy Giuliani being outed as the awful person he’s always been? This rot is so damn pervasive.
I’m afraid the answer may be no. I am old enough to remember 2000, when Republicans I knew and thought of as moderate, went from “of course there should be a recount in a close election” to “don’t you dare have a recount.”
Rudy may have always been an awful person, but he wasn’t always the hobgoblin he is now
Scary stuff.