KJP Thought She Could Take a Victory Lap Over Student Debt 'Relief' at...
Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown Hit With FEC Complaint
Jen Psaki's Book Lands Her in More Hot Water
Biden Admin Just Made Quite the Admission Regarding Release of Gas Reserves
Chris Hayes Stumped by Stock Purchases, and PolitiFact Insists Illegal Immigrants Will Not...
Biden Announces Another Student Loan Bailout
What Raisi’s Death Means for Iran, the World
California Has Become a Billboard Advertisement for Trump Amid Rising Gas Prices
Trump or Biden: This Is Who Gets Nikki Haley's Vote
Millions of Illegal Immigrants Rush to Border Before November Election
NYC Parents Expressed Concerns About 'Transgender' Athletes. Here's How Democrats Responde...
Trump to Make Waves With Unusual Group As They Abandon Joe Biden
Democrat Lawmakers in One State Want to Change the Term ‘Offender’
Reuters Poll: Biden's Job Approval Falls to Lowest Level Since...
Trump Was Asked About Policies Restricting Birth Control. Here's What He Said.
Tipsheet

NYT Piece on the Clinton Foundation Makes You Wonder If They Read the Durham Report

The lack of self-awareness exhibited by the liberal media never ceases to amaze me, and at times—it can come across as if they’re just trolling conservatives. They tried to dismiss the Durham report as a dud, something that was already reported on five years ago with the report filed by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whom they said found no evidence of bias at the FBI during the 2016 election, specifically with the Clinton email probe. That’s not what the report said. The Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel long parsed the language in the document and made clear the DC-speak that Democrats peddled as fact. It didn’t say there was no bias: 

Advertisement

“Don't believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn't find bias. He very carefully says that he found no ‘documentary’ evidence that bias produced ‘specific investigatory decisions.’ That's different.” 

“It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: ‘Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President.’” 

But he [Horowitz] in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they “cast a cloud” on the entire "investigation's credibility." That's pretty damning.

 Comebtta refers to Mr. Paul Combetta, the computer specialist who deleted the 30,000 Clinton emails that were subpoenaed.

So, what does the Times have for us today: the FBI found no evidence of felonious activity while investigating the Clinton Foundation which continued until Trump’s last days. It’s odd since the bureau deep-sixed four investigations, including three probes involving the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. Yet, the FBI was a completely apolitical agency during the 2016 election and beyond, right? The Clinton Foundation issue became something of a sectarian conflict between the Department of Justice prosecutors and the FBI (via NYT): 

Advertisement

The Justice Department kept open the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s family foundation for nearly all of President Donald J. Trump’s administration, with prosecutors closing the case without charges just days before he left office. 

Newly released documents and interviews with former department officials show that the investigation stretched long past when F.B.I. agents and prosecutors knew it was a dead end. The conclusion of the case, which centered on the Clinton Foundation’s dealings with foreign donors when Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state under President Barack Obama, has not previously been reported. 

[…] 

The closing documents, which were obtained by The New York Times as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, spelled the end to an investigation that top prosecutors had expressed doubts about from the beginning. Still, it became a rallying cry for Republicans who believed the F.B.I. would ultimately turn up evidence of corruption and damage Mrs. Clinton’s political fortunes. 

[…] 

The investigation became a source of friction at the F.B.I. as agents believed the Justice Department had stymied their work. 

That tension spilled into public view and had far-reaching consequences. 

Andrew G. McCabe, then the F.B.I.’s deputy director, was accused of leaking information about the case to a Wall Street Journal reporter and later lying about it to the Justice Department’s inspector general. The episode helped prompt his dismissal in 2018 and a failed effort by the department to prosecute him. 

[…] 

In August 2021, the F.B.I. received what is known as a declination memo from prosecutors and as a result considered the matter closed. 

“All of the evidence obtained during the course of this investigation has been returned or otherwise destroyed,” according to the F.B.I.

Advertisement

Oh, the rabidly anti-Trump DOJ destroyed evidence relating to this investigation? What a shock.

Given what we know about the Durham report, do we trust this conclusion? The agency that lied about Russian collusion suppressed exculpatory evidence to secure illegal FISA warrants against Trump’s team and used said phony evidence on Russian collusion to spy on the Trump campaign itself. The man, Peter Strzok, who greenlit this fake counterintelligence investigation proudly declared that he would stop Trump from becoming president while texting his mistress, Lisa Page, and were supposed to believe that the FBI found nothing, even though everyone and their mother knows the Clintons’ non-profit was a favor depository for the wealthy. The Trump DOJ remained infiltrated by rabid liberals and Obama holdovers who did leak sensitive information and hamstrung the administration at every opportunity. So, sorry, given what has transpired over there, everyone should be suspect reading the FBI/DOJ. How the Times didn’t realize that isn’t intentional. They probably don’t care. But you already know the ratio: for every one good story these publications produce, the next two dozen are liberal propaganda. There’s nothing wrong with that; just drop the veneer that you are objective media.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement