$WHACKD

Just finished diving into the full Durham report and man, there's a lot to unpack. Thought I'd share my objective take for anyone who doesn't have the time or energy to wade through the whole thing.

Basically, Durham, who was appointed by former AG William Barr, took a hard look at the origins of the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The report had quite a bit to say about the FBI's conduct, and it wasn't flattering. Durham criticized them for a lack of rigorous analysis, especially when dealing with politically affiliated sources.

Interestingly, the FBI has already responded to the report, pointing out that they've taken corrective actions to address the issues identified. They seem to agree that there were missteps, but believe that the measures they've put in place since then would prevent a repeat of such errors.

One of the main arguments in the report is that Trump was treated unfairly by the FBI, who were too quick to use their investigative powers. This is something Trump's allies were eager to see discussed, as they've long claimed that the investigation was a misuse of federal power intended to influence the 2016 election.

But here's the rub, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog contradicted some of Durham's conclusions in a 2019 report. That report found that despite some mistakes, the FBI was justified in opening the investigation and that there wasn't evidence of political bias.

Durham went into great detail about the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation, which led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel. This investigation didn't find any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it did find contacts between campaign officials and Russians.

However, Durham argued that the FBI was too hasty in opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in July 2016, after a Trump campaign aide told an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign had received an offer from Russia to help Trump by releasing damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Finally, Durham's report found that neither the FBI nor the CIA had any intelligence suggesting an improper relationship between Trump and Russia at the time the investigation was launched. But he did criticize the FBI's decision to open a full counterintelligence investigation based on "raw, uncorroborated information."

The report is a hefty read, and there's a lot more detail in there. It's an interesting look at the behind-the-scenes workings of these investigations, regardless of where you stand politically. Definitely worth a look if you've got the time.

Does the report suggest this was a witch hunt?

The Durham report, focuses primarily on criticisms of the FBI's conduct and decision-making in initiating the investigation, rather than on the ultimate findings regarding collusion. It suggests that the decision to start the investigation was based on "raw, uncorroborated information," and that at the time the investigation was launched, neither the FBI nor the CIA had any intelligence suggesting an improper relationship between Trump and Russia.

However, it's important to note that lack of evidence at the outset of an investigation does not necessarily mean that no evidence was found over the course of the investigation. Robert Mueller's investigation, which followed the initial FBI investigation, did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, partly because of people pleading the fifth and using communication methods that are encrypted but it did document a series of contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to Russia.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, went further and concluded that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian operatives posed a significant counterintelligence risk. The report found that the Trump campaign was receptive to offers of assistance from Russia, and that the campaign's high-level advisors failed to report numerous contacts with Russian officials or take action to protect the campaign from foreign influence.

So, while the Durham report criticizes the basis for starting the investigation, it doesn't negate the findings of subsequent investigations.