# Barr appoints U.S. attorney John Durham to investigate the investigation **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 14, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946 "2019-05-14T14:59:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/21 "2019-05-15T16:56:58Z")
He must be a Fox viewer. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/22 "2019-05-15T16:59:57Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 1. The claim that Trump or his surrogates cooperated, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians, which at this point no reasonable and informed person can claim actually occurred. > > … > > \*\*If there was indeed credible evidence for the second, of course they should have investigated. But it is far from clear that there ever was. \*\*The purpose of Barr/Durham’s inquiries is to determine if the FBI and others were doing wiretaps and running informants based on information they already knew was _not_ credible, as well as if other laws and rules were followed (e.g. possible false statements in court filings, etc) And that’s the fundamental problem. It is clear that there **was** evidence of such. > [@](#): > > On or about May 10, 2016, at London’s Kensington Wine Rooms, Papadopoulos allegedly told the top Australian diplomat to the United Kingdom, Alexander Downer, that Russia was in possession of emails relating to Hillary Clinton. In July, after the DNC hacking had become known, the Australians told U.S. authorities about Papadopoulos’s comment, leading the Federal Bureau of Investigation to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Donald Trump presidential campaign on July 31, 2016.[28][39] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_Papadopoulos#Involvement\_in\_Donald\_Trump’s\_presidential\_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Papadopoulos#Involvement_in_Donald_Trump's_presidential_campaign) > [@](#): > > According to reports, Australian officials informed American officials that in May 2016, a Trump presidential campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, told the Australian High Commissioner to Britain, Alexander Downer, that Russian officials were in possession of politically damaging information relating to Hillary Clinton, the rival presidential candidate to Trump. Since the FBI, in response to this information, opened an investigation into the links between Trump associates and Russian officials on July 31, 2016, the meeting between Papadopoulos and Downer is considered to be the ‘spark’ that led to the Mueller investigation.[65] In February 2018, the Nunes memo, written by staff for U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, described that the information on Papadopoulos “triggered the opening of” the original FBI investigation,[66] rather than the Trump-Russia dossier as asserted by, among others, Trump, Nunes, Fox News hosts Steve Doocy, Ed Henry, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy. > **[Mueller special counsel investigation | Origin and powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)#Origin_and_powers)** > > When the special counsel was appointed by Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, the special counsel took over an existing counterintelligence investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into what proved to be Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and numerous secretive links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies. According to reports, Australian officials informed American officials that in May 2016, a Trump presidential campaign adviser, George Papa The... Now, sure, ultimately the investigation showed that they didn’t actually follow through on any of the attempts by Russia to collude with them, but absent that investigation, there’s no way we could have known that. The investigation was a perfectly reasonable response to the information they had at the time. And the fact that they eventually absolved Trump et al. of culpability is proof that it was not a politically motivated witch hunt as Trump et al. have been asserting for years now. > [@](#): > > If Robert Barr thinks there is a real possibility that high-level people in federal law enforcement were running surveillance operations on a political campaign based on information they knew or suspected was false – and which was admittedly sourced from Russian intelligence! – what should \*\*he \*\*do about it? If he thinks that, then he should absolutely carry out an investigation. The problem is, there’s no way his belief is reasonable. He’s already shown a willingness to lie about this case, and there’s no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/23 "2019-05-15T17:35:58Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > And the fact that they eventually absolved Trump et al. of culpability is proof that it was not a politically motivated witch hunt as Trump et al. have been asserting for years now. Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It’s still the crime of conspiracy. Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/24 "2019-05-15T17:50:28Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It’s still the crime of conspiracy. > > Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place. I understand what you mean, but ultimately, Mueller did conclude the evidence wasn’t enough to support a charge on the original conspiracy accusations. There’s still enough other stuff that Trump et al. are clearly guilty of that I figure we should focus on that. But my main issue is with the “no reason to even investigate” claim, which is clearly false. There were a lot of sketchy things going on, and a whole lot of them at least _looked like_ collusion, and any reasonable person should have supported the investigation on that basis alone, regardless of what they might think of the ultimate conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/25 "2019-05-15T18:08:38Z")
> [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > I don’t see how you can deny that this occurred. The Mueller report goes into quite a bit of detail about how people close to and paid by and related to Trump did in fact seek co-operation with the Russians. Congratulations! **furt** can now safely move you out of the “reasonable and informed person” category! ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/26 "2019-05-15T18:17:11Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Um. They have not been absolved. If you try to conspire to commit a crime but the crime fails. It’s still the crime of conspiracy. > > Not to mention not alerting the FBI about being approached by the Russians in the first place. > [@Horatius](#): > > For those complaining about “The US government … spying on at least one political campaign”, answer this: > > If some element of the US government (FBI, CIA, whoever) somehow came into possession of credible evidence that a political campaign was being targeted by a foreign power, and that some members of that campaign might even be actively cooperating with the foreign power, what, exactly, do **YOU** think they should have done about it? What actions should they take? What actions _could_ they take that wouldn’t have someone, somewhere complaining about them “trying to affect the election”? > Completely aside from the issue of Trump, and whether or not his campaign should have been investigated, one thing we know for sure from the Mueller report is that Russia was absolutely trying to influence the last election. There’s no reason to think they’re going to stop for the next election, so this isn’t a purely academic question. At some point, someone in the US government is probably going to have evidence that points to foreign influence in the 2020 election, _ **so what should they do about it?** _ We’ll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past. Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/27 "2019-05-15T18:20:46Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > We’ll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past. So you _do_ approve of using these investigations for political purposes, just not when you think its against “your guy”… got it. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/28 "2019-05-15T18:25:15Z")
“Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation.” Sounds spooky! Tell me more! ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/29 "2019-05-15T18:29:33Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > I understand what you mean, but ultimately, Mueller did conclude the evidence wasn’t enough to support a charge on the original conspiracy accusations. There’s still enough other stuff that Trump et al. are clearly guilty of that I figure we should focus on that. > > But my main issue is with the “no reason to even investigate” claim, which is clearly false. There were a lot of sketchy things going on, and a whole lot of them at least _looked like_ collusion, and any reasonable person should have supported the investigation on that basis alone, regardless of what they might think of the ultimate conclusions. I thought it was mostly Mueller didn’t indite because you can’t (so it seems) indite a sitting President. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/30 "2019-05-15T18:31:11Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you _do_ approve of using these investigations for political purposes, just not when you think its against “your guy”… got it. No I think it’s rather sordid, but it is an expected behavior of states. My vantage point as a nonpartisan observer allows me to see the hypocrisy and mirror images. I have explained in the past that the election of Trump is proof of the decline of the US regime. No spy apparatus worth its salt would allow for the election of someone so grotesque as to undermine the perceived legitimacy of the state itself. The Dulles brothers would be rolling over in their grave. The US state used to attract competent elites. Now we are left with the Brennans, Clappers, and Pompeos. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/31 "2019-05-15T18:37:08Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I thought it was mostly Mueller didn’t indite because you can’t (so it seems) indite a sitting President. You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didn’t indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none. He had other reasons for not indicting on other charges. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/32 "2019-05-15T19:04:21Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didn’t indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none. He had other reasons for not indicting on other charges. I think it’s more correct to say that they couldn’t uncover sufficient evidence because of all the lying and obstruction going on, for which there have been several successful prosecutions, and I think more in the works. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/33 "2019-05-15T19:34:12Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > I thought it was mostly Mueller didn’t indite because you can’t (so it seems) indite a sitting President. That was for the issue of the obstruction of justice. It’s quite clear to anyone not a GOP partisan that Trump is guilty as hell of obstruction, and that Mueller referred those charges to Congress because of the DOJ policy on Presidents as you mention. But, as discussed above, the collusion charges were not supported by adequate evidence. The reasons for the lack of evidence can be argued, but Mueller’s conclusion is pretty clear. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/34 "2019-05-15T19:41:47Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You may have been confused by Maddow. Mueller didn’t indict for collusion/conspiracy/coordination because there was none. You may have been confused by poor reading skills. It doesn’t say “there was none.” It says they couldn’t show enough evidence to bring a charge, which is not the same thing: > [@Report](#): > > Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. One reason, (as **RitterSport** notes), is that > [@Report](#): > > The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information-such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media-in light of internal Depaptment of Justice policies. See, e.g. , Justice Manual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter ( or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States. > [@RitterSport](#): > > I think it’s more correct to say that they couldn’t uncover sufficient evidence because of all the lying and obstruction going on, for which there have been several successful prosecutions, and I think more in the works. I agree there’s a likelihood that indeed, technically they didn’t conspire. Maybe they were just too incompetent. Or maybe they knew that they just didn’t need to. It wasn’t necessary, because the Russians did it all on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/35 "2019-05-15T20:45:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > We’ll see how the Russophobes react when Barr unleashes the spooks onto the Biden campaign ostensibly for his Ukrainian cronyism or Bernie Sanders for his wacky past. > > Also, the Clinton campaign conspired with a foreign spook, the US spooks knew this, yet no investigation. Heres the thing about the left. We don’t care if you investigate our politicians. We don’t want our politicians to be above the law. The right does. Its a rather worrysome situation where the right has been taken over by neofascists who hate the rule of law. But by all means, if Sanders, Biden, Clinton, etc. have actually broken the law feel free to investigate them. Nobody should be above the rule of law. The fact that right wingers expect our side to think the rule of law is just a partisan tool rather than a necessary tenet of civilized democracy is just projection and very worrysome because it shows how little respect they have for the rule of law. The hatred for democracy and all it stands for (rule of law, free and fair elections, transparency, a free media, independent judiciary, etc) seen in the modern right in the US is very worrysome and something the rest of us need to take very serious. Also how did Clinton conspire with a foreign spook? She hired an ex MI6 agent to research Trump’s treasonous behavior. That is like saying police officers who work undercover in gang operations should be prosecuted for being gang members. Since when is investigating a crime a crime itself? Muellers investigation led to 14 cases being handed off to other prosecutors. Only 2 of those cases are public, the other 12 are still redacted. An investigation leading to 14 different criminal investigations is not a witchhunt. It only appears to be a witchhunt to neofascists who hate modern democracy and the rule of law and think the police should be there to terrorize their enemies and protect their friends. ---
**Author:** ![ataraxy22](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ataraxy22/32/307_2.png) [@ataraxy22](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ataraxy22)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/36 "2019-05-15T20:54:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Congratulations! **furt** can now safely move you out of the “reasonable and informed person” category! Seriously! It’s pretty damn obvious to reasonable people that Trump and Russian assets collaborated. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/37 "2019-05-15T20:58:20Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Also how did Clinton conspire with a foreign spook? She hired an ex MI6 agent to research Trump’s treasonous behavior. No; she did not. Please stop spreading false narratives. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/38 "2019-05-15T21:24:52Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No; she did not. Please stop spreading false narratives. It was my understanding that Fusion GPS hired Chris Steele (ex MI6 agent with a lot of experience in Russia) to look into Trump’s Russia ties. WHat he found was so disturbing that he kept up the research even after he stopped getting paid. My understanding is that both the Jeb Bush & Clinton campaigns funded the research. Is that info wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/39 "2019-05-15T23:27:21Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > It was my understanding that Fusion GPS hired Chris Steele (ex MI6 agent with a lot of experience in Russia) to look into Trump’s Russia ties. WHat he found was so disturbing that he kept up the research even after he stopped getting paid. > > My understanding is that both the Jeb Bush & Clinton campaigns funded the research. > > Is that info wrong? Why don’t you first tell me all the things wrong with the statement I said was false? Because now you’re changing what you said (by adding details and clarifiers). ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2019, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946/40 "2019-05-15T23:37:48Z")
That doesn’t make sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/barr-appoints-u-s-attorney-john-durham-to-investigate-the-investigation/833946.md?page=3)