Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up
to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover
a politically motivated “deep state” conspiracy. He charged no high-level
F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote
that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable,
either.
But even as Mr. Durham’s report questioned whether the F.B.I. should have
opened the Trump-Russia probe as a lower-level investigation, he stopped
short of stating that opening a full one violated any rule.
Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking
expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level
officials. Those include the former directors of the F.B.I. and C.I.A.,
James B. Comey and John O. Brennan, and Democratic leaders like Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joseph R. Biden Jr.
In fact, Mr. Durham only ever developed charges against two outsiders
involved in efforts to scrutinize links between Mr. Trump and Russia,
accusing them both of making false statements to the F.B.I. and treating
the bureau as a victim, not a perpetrator.
Mr. Durham continued for another two and a half years, spending millions of
dollars to bring the two demonstrably weak cases involving accusations of
false statements; in each instance, a jury of 12 unanimously rejected the
charges. One of Mr. Durham’s handpicked prosecutors resigned from his team
in protest of the first of those indictments, The Times has reported.
Even after Mr. Durham’s cases collapsed, some Trump supporters held out
hope that his final report would deliver a bombshell. But it largely
consisted of recycled material, interlaced with conclusions like Mr.
Durham’s accusation that the F.B.I. had displayed a “lack of analytical
rigor."
—
I would cite the source but IM never does so why should I?
--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie