The stunning hypocrisy of Bill Barr’s probe into the Russia-Trump investigation

[+Grim Reaper 6]

In 2019, a few weeks after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Trump administration flipped the script and began investigating the investigators. Attorney General Bill Barr appointed US Attorney John Durham to investigate those government officials who had presumed to look into Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. The FBI’s Trump-Russia probe, Barr argued publicly, was born of chasing thin conspiracy theories and relied on phony evidence, and its investigators were either blinded by political bias or acting with blatant political motives. 

Bizarrely enough, when checking out one of these theories — that Italian officials were somehow involved in launching the Trump-Russia investigation — Durham and Barr were instead presented with evidence linking Trump himself to potential financial crimes. “Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore,” the Times reporters write. Barr kept this new investigation of Trump in Durham’s hands, and it’s unclear what became of it.

The stunning hypocrisy of special counsel John Durham’s inquiry into Trump-Russia probe - Vox

[+and-then]

https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-vox-reliable/

Vox is typically seen to be biased to the Left.  That site above explains how that determination is made.  On the whole, the site has highly accurate details included but also is seen to have bottom 26th percentile in the writing "tone".  IOW, the facts ARE included but the way they are presented indicates a lot of political bias.  The article you posted returns often to the fact that Durham "couldn't prove" the accusations but that is disingenuous, IMO.  The District of Columbia has a near total Democrat demographic makeup.  IIRC it's around 92-94% Democrat voting record.  With the severe politicization of the last 10-15 years, a fair trial for a Republican is nearly impossible there.  The opposite is true for Democrats accused of criminal behavior of a political nature like this situation.  

The best recent example was the acquittal of Michael Sussman.  He was a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm that represented the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Rock solid evidence was presented, in actual written documentation, that left no doubt that he was the person responsible for the accusations of foreign influence in the 2016 election.  That "tip" to the FBI was used to begin the investigation of Trump.  When he was passing this info to the FBI, he volunteered the statement that he was "just trying to be a good citizen" or something like that, and that he had no connections that would potentially bias his views.

He lied.  The documentation proved that beyond any reasonable doubt and Durham's case hinged almost totally on that presentation of the factual record.  A DC jury took 6 hours to acquit and he walked free, no consequences at all.  It's pointless and either naive or politically biased to posit that jury composition doesn't matter in such trials.  That's why I always point out the massive number/percentage of potential Democrat-voting jurors in DC.  If/when Trump is indicted and goes on trial there, it would be amazing to the point of miraculous if the judge allowed a change of venue.  Not even a miracle would see him acquitted and I think that honest, fair-minded people would acknowledge that.