Common sense, the Mueller report, and the Durham Report make one thing very clear: there was no evidence of Russian collusion.
Despite this undeniable fact, the FBI proceeded with an unfounded investigation, and to this day, several Democrats still insist that collusion occurred. Now, the mainstream media is defending the FBI, because, well, they hate Trump, and the ends justify the means.
We expect Democrats to ignore facts. Sadly, we expect the media to as well. But there’s something particularly troubling when the media — which exists as a check on our government, empowered by the first amendment to expose corruption without fear of reprisal — willingly condones such blatant abuses of power simply because they align with the corrupt intentions at hand.
As Newbusters reports, prominent networks such as ABC and NBC are actively defending the FBI despite the damning revelations of the Durham report. There is only one possible explanation for their defense of the agency’s actions despite the absence of evidence of Russian collusion: their hatred of Trump.
The FBI “never should’ve launched a probe in the first place, since ‘neither U.S. law enforcement nor the intelligence community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion,’” ABC Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas quoted the Durham report. But he later insisted, “Trump’s own comments about Russia in the campaign added to questions about possible collusion.”
Related: That Time the FBI Dropped Four Investigations Into Those Filthy Clintons Before the 2016 Election
Thomas also downplayed the Durham investigation, implying it was a waste of taxpayer dollars and insisting it “falls far short of proving there was a deep state confederacy against [Trump].”
Really? That’s rich.
NBC News was no better. Reporter Ken Dilanian deliberately avoided discussing the Steele Dossier and chose not to delve into Durham’s critical assessments of the FBI. “John Durham concluding the bureau was too quick to open an investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 based on raw and uncorroborated information while saying the FBI was much more cautious and skeptical about allegations against the Clinton campaign.”
Umm, that’s one way to put it. It would be far more accurate to say that the FBI chose to investigate Trump based on zero evidence, ignored exculpatory evidence throughout their investigation, and flat-out refused to investigate Clinton four times. But, hey, why nitpick over semantics, right?
Dilanian then doubled down by falsely equating Durham’s report with the 2019 report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz, “which found that the FBI made mistakes but was justified in opening the Trump investigation.”
Durham’s report makes it quite clear that the FBI was not justified in investigating Trump, effectively contradicting the Horowitz report. This actually raises significant questions about the independence and objectivity of inspectors general, but that’s another issue for another time.
The Trump campaign never colluded with Russia; it was the FBI, intelligence community, media, and Democratic Party that colluded to take an outlandish conspiracy theory and use it as a pretext to investigate a presidential candidate and undermine his presidency. This is the kind of conspiracy that journalists — real journalists — once made careers out of exposing. Now, they’re willing accomplices.
