John Durham certainly did. He explicitly stated that he found no criminal activity. The worst he accused them of was "confirmation bias".
interesting. sounds a lot like this huh: ""the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference " - mueller report so he explicitly states he found no conspiring or coordination. exonerated. thanks for helping me help you, by walking into these traps i set for you that force you contradict yourself.
And there you go with your dishonest bullshit equivalences... your stock in trade. Mueller's report SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY states that his investigation and report does not exonerate trump, which implies that there was much he could not pursue. The Durham report, on the other hand, which was an investigation of the investigators, was by its very nature much more exhaustive.... looking at the decisions to investigate, which are quite well known and close-ended. What Durham said was that there was not evidence to launch a full scale investigation; if there was something Durham left out it would have been evidence in support of the FBI investigation.
it doesnt imply that. it means that these sort of proceedings are by nature not intended to prove a negative. you claim trump is a rapist, but the jury explicitly said no to that charge. then why did they do full investigation, and why you claim he is guilty of collusion if there was no finding of collusion, and furthermore not enough evidence even to launch a full investigation? so mueller found no coordination or conspiring, durham found that the whole investigation was not even needed, but you still say he is guilty of that, and also of rape, which the just said an explicit "NO" to. you refuse to accept the reality of these findings. was there enough evidence to launch a full scale investigation? according to you durham says there was not. what do you think? yunno given your exhaustive research?
Because Durham is wrong, duh, and an obvious fund-sucking hack. A full investigation WAS justified, just as the FBI states. The trump tower meeting with Russian nationals DID happen; the FBI didn't make that up. trump DID invite Russia to expose Hillary campaign information, to which they quickly complied. The FBI didn't make that up. A trump campaign aid DID go around the world boasting of Russian connections. The FBI didn't make that up. Etc. Etc. Etc. Just as Mueller correctly stated, he didn't attempt to find a basis for "collusion". He was investigating the possibility of criminal conspiracy, and was cut off at the knees by Bill Barr. For the umpteenth time, the jury didn't say he didn't commit rape. It said the plaintiff hadn't proven it by a preponderance of evidence. Yes, he raped her. I believe her.
i see. so according to you: durham is wrong mueller is wrong. jury that didnt find trump raped anyone also wrong well, maybe next time. walls are closing in for sure this next time
its worth noting here you lied about a semen stained dress that didnt exist in order to push this story and failed to ever admit it, even now will refuse to admit you were lying, when i have proven many times over that you were lying. do you ever question the sources that tell you these lies that you spread?
No, liar. The jury got it right. She DIDN'T prove rape by a preponderance of evidence. I don't think her legal team tried very hard to do that. In your dreams, liar.
