That's simply not true that he didn't find anything to prosecute. He prosecuted 2 cases that were directly tied to what he was investigating. Granted, he lost those cases but he apparently felt he had enough evidence of criminality to prosecute. This is unlike the Mueller investigation, where I don't think any of the cases he prosecuted and got convictions for had anything to do with the alleged Trump/Russia conspiracy.Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 7:50 amThis was the one thing that Durham was authorized to investigate, the purpose of the report. Durham was appointed as a special prosecutor. That is the big picture. And he didn't find anything to prosecute.GaryK wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 9:21 pmWhy focus only on this one part of the investigation as though it's the primary point of the investigation? This seems disingenuous at best. I refer you to the full big picture in the post where I quoted the questions Durham set out to answer.Bootstrap wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 8:32 pm Big picture: Durham was asked to investigate whether crimes were committed when investigating Trump. And he was asked to prosecute any such crimes.
The introduction tells us that:
!!! SNIP !!!
So ... did Durham find new people to prosecute? New instances of crimes that were committed? Proof of a deep state consipracy against Trump? IT sure doesn't look like it. But that's what he was authorized to look for. And that's why this report looks like a dud to me.
This is the big picture: Durham investigated at length a series of conspiracy theories about the origins of the investigation and found no evidence of any of them.
So did Durham simply forget what he was originally commissioned to do? Even though he quotes it in the introduction? He does actually admit these things, but you have to look in the footnotes. Why wasn't this one of the first things said in the executive summary?
So when I am interested in what Durham did not say, he didn't have much to say about the purpose of the report And that's why it feels like a dud to me.
Once again I remind you of this part of the report:
I think I remember you and others using something very similar found in the Mueller report to suggest that this means that wrongdoings did occur. I wonder why you view this one differently.The decision of whether to bring criminal charges in any given matter thus is a
complicated one that is neither entirely subjective nor mechanistic. If this report and the
outcome of the Special Counsel's investigation leave some with the impression that injustices or
misconduct have gone unaddressed, it is not because the Office concluded that no such injustices
or misconduct occurred. It is, rather, because not every injustice or transgression amounts to a
criminal offense, and criminal prosecutors are tasked exclusively with investigating and
prosecuting violations of U.S. criminal laws. And even where prosecutors believe a crime
occurred based on all of the facts and information they have gathered, it is their duty only to
bring criminal charges when the evidence that the government reasonably believes is admissible
in court proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.