SPECIAL COUNSEL JOHN DURHAM TESTIFIES BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS THE DEMOCRATS SEEK TO UNDERMINE HIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION...
In today's session of testimony from Special Counsel John Durham before the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic members have been repeatedly posing a set of questions to John Durham, the special counsel appointed to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation. These questions have been asked repetitively, focusing primarily on the duration, cost, and outcomes of Durham's investigation, as well as drawing comparisons to the Mueller report.
These are the questions that asked:
1. How many years did your investigation take?
2. How much did this investigation cost that the US taxpayer?
3. How many convictions did your investigation produce?
4. Why Did the Mueller investigation take almost have the time of your investigation?
5. Why Did the Mueller investigation produce many indictments and guilty verdicts?
6. Did Attorney General Garland allow your in investigation to continue?
7. Did Attorney General Garland restrict your investigation?
8. Did Attorney General Garland support your investigation?
One recurring question from democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee pertains to the length of Durham's investigation. This question aims to shed light on the time taken to conduct the inquiry, potentially to gauge its thoroughness and assess any delays. Democrats seem to be seeking to highlight any perceived inefficiencies or attempt to undermine the credibility of the investigation by implying undue delay.
Another repetitive question from democratic members on the House Judiciary Committee revolves around the cost of the investigation, which Democrats emphasize as an expenditure borne by taxpayers. This line of questioning aims to hold Durham accountable for the financial resources allocated to his investigation and potentially cast doubt on its value, especially if the outcomes fail to meet expectations.
The number of convictions resulting from the investigation is yet another topic consistently addressed by the democratic members on the House Judiciary Committee. By probing the effectiveness of Durham's work, Democrats seem to be seeking to challenge the perceived significance of his findings. The focus on convictions and indictments aims to highlight the credibility and impact of the investigation's outcomes.
The committee's repeated questions often draw comparisons between the Mueller report and Durham's findings. This line of inquiry may be driven by a desire to ascertain the uniqueness of Durham's conclusions or to question the necessity of his investigation if it merely repeats previously explored and investigated information. Democrats seem to be attempting to undermine the significance of Durham's work by labeling it as old news and diverting attention away from any potential revelations of wrong doing or political motivation with the FBI.
The democratic members of the committee were also seeking to understand the role of Attorney General Merrick Garland in Durham's investigation. By inquiring about any limitations or support imposed by Garland, Democrats aim to explore the level of independence granted to Durham and potentially uncover any perceived biases or obstructions in the investigative process.
The repetitive nature of the questions posed by from democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee to John Durham, the special counsel leading the investigation into the Russia probe's origins, can be viewed through several lenses. These questions regarding the investigation's duration, cost, convictions, comparisons to the Mueller report, and Attorney General Garland's involvement serve multiple purposes. Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee were clearly seeking to challenge the credibility of Durham's findings, cast doubt on the necessity of his investigation, or divert attention from potential revelations of wrong doing or political motivation with the FBI. Understanding these motivations provides a nuanced perspective on the ongoing congressional scrutiny of Durham's work and the broader political context surrounding the Russia investigation.
They even went on to say that the Durham report was nothing but rehashed information of the Mueller report, and it was nothing but old news.
And Mr Lei even said that he was not even sure why they were having this session.
Because that's ALL THEY HAVE. Representatives, Schiff, Swalwell, Lei, Jayapal, Scanlon, Neguse and Dean and others all brought up the same exact questions.
They didn't want to talk about the actual findings in the Durham report based on the facts, they only wanted to talk about what Trump and his associates did or did not do.
However, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee asked Durham specific questions pertaining to His investigation and subsequent report. The questions they asked were thorough, and thought-provoking questions meant to highlight the finding in his report. They thanked him for his service and recognized his excellence and digging to find the truth based on the facts.
The bottom line is that special counsel John Durham is testifying in Congress before the House Judiciary Committee today to discuss the findings in his report, he is not there to answer questions from the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding what president Trump or his campaign did or did not do. It's clearly obvious that the Democrats have completely misunderstood the purpose of special counsel John Durham testimony and instead have used it as a way to attack Durham and his credibility and even undermine his character and his entire investigation.