Durham's report found DOJ, FBI 'failed to uphold' mission of 'strict fidelity to the law' in Trump-Russia probe

[My Wife Hates CIV]

oh my! you stupid liberals. still... hate drives you. You are a sad and sorry bunch. But we already knew that.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Special Counsel John Durham has released a report that says the Trump-Russia probe never should have been launched.

but we already knew that.​

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Durham added that his investigation also revealed that "senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."

it was a great be lie! but we already knew that.

[Berzerker]

The IG Horowitz and Mueller debunked Russiagate, but what did Durham have to say about Crossfire Hurricane? That was the initial investigation into George Papadopoulus for being told by professor Misfud Russia had dirt on Hillary. Sure, Putin had a professor with ties to western intel have George let Donald know. Clinton et al framed Trump as a traitor, McCarthyism found a home in the Democrat party. But did McCarthy actually frame people? I thought he made accusations but didn't run around planting evidence.

[Dinner]

I am not remotely surprised. Obama tried to turn everything partisan and Biden has doubled down on that garbage.

[Geronimo]

Dp

[Geronimo]

BBC News - Durham report: FBI criticised by special counsel for Trump-Russia inquiry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65602909​

link to bbc article on the report​

[BeBMan]

Trump was also found not-liable for rape recently. Just liable for battery and defamation. Unbelievable.

He is now apealing this great injustice

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65566501

[Dinner]

It actually is a great injustice that the allegation wasn't 3ven made until 25 years later and the Democraps in NY State specifically changed the law just for this allegation which was only made to help her sell books. Given there 2as no evidence, she kept changing her story, and frequently said it was mutual and not rape... Well, we really do have law used as a political weapon simply because he is running for 2024. Hate him all you want, I prefer DeSantis as he actually gets good legislation passed, but unequal application of the law to use it as a political weapon is a gross injustice.

That is what Democraps are all about days though.

[Geronimo]

DeSantis also favors using the law as a political weapon.

[Dinner]

HA! "Making Disney have the same standing with every other company without special legal privileges" is "using the law as a political weapon"? Talk about being delusional and uninformed.

Give us a specific examples of your nonsense claim.

[Geronimo]

HA! "Making Disney have the same standing with every other company without special legal privileges" is "using the law as a political weapon"? Talk about being delusional and uninformed.

Give us a specific examples of your nonsense claim.

rubbish. By that logic if the government removed the ability to deduct church contributions as a charitable deduction in response to church political activism against abortion, then it wouldn't constitute using the law as a political weapon. I would also insist that the fort lee lane closure scandal constituted "using the law as a weapon" or Trump even suggesting that politically useful investigations be made by a foreign power in the same conversation as a discussion of aid to that foreign power.

Tell me more about how you extrapolate my state of delusion and ignorance by my comparison of Desantis retaliation against Disney to the politically skewed activities of the FBI. I definitely thought it curious that you endorsed Desantis in the same breath as condemning abuse of executive power against political opponents.

I will however concede that what Desantis did was vastly less concerning than politically motivated investigations by law enforcement per the OP.

[PLATO]

To use the "Church" analogy, I would say it is much more like if the Catholic Church had a tax exemption and other churches didn't. A law change to take away the Catholic Churches exemption would not be a "political weapon",

Personally, I think The Reedy Creek Development District was a brilliant move by Florida the way they set it up years ago, but you do have to recognize that it was a clear exception to how businesses in Florida were dealt with. Removing Disney's oversite, while regrettable, only levels the field. It does not put Disney at a disadvantage versus other businesses...which is what it would take to be a "political weapon"

[Geronimo]

To use the "Church" analogy, I would say it is much more like if the Catholic Church had a tax exemption and other churches didn't. A law change to take away the Catholic Churches exemption would not be a "political weapon",

Personally, I think The Reedy Creek Development District was a brilliant move by Florida the way they set it up years ago, but you do have to recognize that it was a clear exception to how businesses in Florida were dealt with. Removing Disney's oversite, while regrettable, only levels the field. It does not put Disney at a disadvantage versus other businesses...which is what it would take to be a "political weapon"

If the exemption was clearly put in place to further the public good, then clearly removing it in response to political activities, especially in response to constitutionally protected free speech constitutes using the law as a weapon.

If an exemption was given to the catholic church for the public good, perhaps special privileges with respect to a particular piece of catholic property whose use was seen as serving the general public good, then again, removing its special privilege for some purpose other than for the public good, especially in response to political activism, would constitute abuse of power.

[PLATO]

I get your point. The Reedy Creek arrangement was certainly in the public good for many years. Is it still? I don't know the answer to that. Usually my position is that Gov't running things turns out worse than "For Profits" running things. I think that is probably still the case with Reedy Creek. Did DeSantis act out of political retaliation? I think he did. Still, the fact remains that Disney got preferential treatment and the need for that preferential treatment has certainly diminished with development. I, for one, hope Disney wins the lawsuit, but I can't say that DeSantis acted "unfairly".

[Geronimo]

my apologies for the thread jack. I think this side bar about Desantis is distracting from the much more serious issues raised in the OP. I may think punishing a specially privileged business given privileges to serve some public good by removing those privileges as punishment for political speech is the same sort of vice that leads to the abuse of the FBI for political ends, but by no means does Desantis action rise to the same level of seriousness as this appalling abusive use of the FBI.