(05-16-2023 07:06 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 05:52 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-...ssia-probe

Jim Comey update.

By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

I hope you are right. The alternative would mean that a W&M grad led a treasonous attack on a duly elected President. Not to mention that a previous and current President were in on the plan.

The good news is that treason is a crime and this report didn't find that any crimes were committed. So it looks like we're clear of "the alternative".

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 05:52 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-...ssia-probe

Jim Comey update.

By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

A pretty good summation here

https://themessenger.com/opinion/durham-...difference

(05-17-2023 06:29 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 05:52 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-...ssia-probe

Jim Comey update.

By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

A pretty good summation here

https://themessenger.com/opinion/durham-...difference

I read the report. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2...report.pdf) That isn't a good summation of the report. It is a good summation of right-wing talking points. I was pretty impressed that he got a mention of Hunter Biden in there. He had to work hard for that one.

The lighter side

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-admits...thing-else

(05-17-2023 02:58 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 06:29 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 05:52 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-...ssia-probe

Jim Comey update.

By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

A pretty good summation here

https://themessenger.com/opinion/durham-...difference

I read the report. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2...report.pdf) right-wing talking points

Name calling! Looks like someone has conceded.

Now if only the Post and Times would show some class as well.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/05...ax-n747256

(05-17-2023 04:46 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 02:58 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 06:29 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 05:52 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-...ssia-probe

Jim Comey update.

By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

A pretty good summation here

https://themessenger.com/opinion/durham-...difference

I read the report. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2...report.pdf) right-wing talking points

Name calling! Looks like someone has conceded.

Now if only the Post and Times would show some class as well.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/05...ax-n747256

That's not name calling, it's pattern recognition. The link to the Messenger has the same right-wing talking points as you see at redstate.com and all the other sites you link to. They skim the report for phrases they can take out of context in order to manufacture outrage, and then you post the links.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/

(05-17-2023 06:25 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 04:46 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 02:58 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(05-17-2023 06:29 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(05-15-2023 08:56 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  By most accounts I've read, the Durham report was a politically motivated, 4 year, $7 million wild goose chase that pretty much broke little new ground from the original IG report.

A pretty good summation here

https://themessenger.com/opinion/durham-...difference

I read the report. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2...report.pdf) right-wing talking points

Name calling! Looks like someone has conceded.

Now if only the Post and Times would show some class as well.

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/05...ax-n747256

That's not name calling, it's pattern recognition. The link to the Messenger has the same right-wing talking points as you see at redstate.com and all the other sites you link to. They skim the report for phrases they can take out of context in order to manufacture outrage, and then you post the links.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/

I think you’re missing the point, Tribeintheburg (we touched on your issues with reading comprehension on another thread). The Messenger (or Red State) are merely the platforms in these attached summaries. The Messenger article was written by Jonathan Turley, a widely respected legal scholar. Background is provided below. He has been featured in many different and respected platforms of media - print, broadcast, etc.

So while I understand you may be triggered by outlets that don’t share your viewpoints, you need to read more carefully and check the detail on the actual author of the piece you are labeling (in your case, “right wing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

And accusing others of name calling for using a description like “fringe” - while you pass on the term “right wing” as “pattern recognition”(?). - that’s called “hypocrisy”. It’s a term that signifies that a person can find fault in others for something they themselves are guilty. Many people who believe their opinions are above reproach or consider themselves perhaps a bit more important or intelligent than others fall victim to this - so it can be a common trap that we all can fall into.

Dude, I know who Jonathan Turley is. Take a look at jonathanturley.org... most of his posts there are the same as his Messenger piece, full of partisan talking points. He seems to have an obsession with Hunter Biden and the recent Bud Light controversy. I would think that reading carefully would mean looking past the author to the content.

If you don't know the difference between calling concerned faculty "radical" and calling ideas on a right-wing site "right-wing", then you've probably been reading too many sites like redstate.com.

This is a pretty solid way to avoid talking about the report directly though. Can you explain why you think that the Turley piece was "a pretty good summation"? What in the report was summarized well? In the second paragraph, Turley says "special counsel John Durham concluded that the Trump-Russia investigation was launched without a required minimal level of evidence", but that's not correct. Durham concluded that a preliminary investigation should have been opened rather than a full investigation, and also that the preliminary investigation could have proceeded to a full investigation. (see page 295 of the Durham report: "Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation. FBI investigations opened as preliminary investigations, short of full investigations, include time limits and a narrower range of authorized techniques to mitigate risk and avoid unnecessary intrusion. If necessary and appropriate, a lower level of investigative activity may be escalated under the guidelines by converting to a full investigation with supervisory approval") I have no doubt that when it comes to the law that Turley is an expert, but it appears that's not the case when it comes to FBI policies and procedures. Turley and the Durham report hit the Steele Dossier hard, misrepresenting it as the primary source of evidence that led to the investigation. The Durham report ignored altogether the content of the Wikileaks DNC email release and that the emails there corroborated information given to them by trusted Australian diplomats. These sorts of things are the reason that the only sites talking about the Durham report are right-wing sites grasping at straws and committing the most egregious offense that the Durham report charges the FBI with: confirmation bias.