Turley: "Democrats Doth Protest Too Much About The Durham Investigation" *

Jonathan Turley is the voice of sweet reason. If not for him and a very few others like him, I'd have lost it by now. 

That post is right on the money, by my lights.

Behold, I quote!:

   As I have previously discussed, Mifsud remains mired in controversy. The Maltese academic appeared to have ties to the Russians and seemed eager to tell former the Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had hacked the Clinton campaign emails. Mueller reported that Mifsud lied repeatedly to investigators but, curiously, did not pursue criminal charges. That has fueled speculation about the true controllers of Mifsud, and Durham could put that controversy and many others to rest.
   There are legitimate questions about the Obama administration looking into Trump associates. Those questions are magnified by the shocking bias of key players in the Russian probe, which led to the dismissal of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and FBI agent Peter Strzok. The Justice Department inspector general referred prior allegations involving officials like McCabe for possible criminal charges, a referral rejected under the attorney general. It is bizarre for Democrats to argue that key officials referring to “insurance policies” against a Trump victory should not concern the public or warrant finishing the Durham investigation.
   That is why this investigation within an investigation can produce the most revealing moments. One does not have to believe that there is “something rotten” in the FBI to support the completion of the Durham investigation, from which many are unlikely to emerge unscathed. But the increasing protests over his work only heightens suspicions, and that is exactly why we need more disclosure than drama from Washington.

The MSM pumped up Russiagate for more than two years, and released a steady stream of misinformation, always, always, always pointing in the same direction. Russiagate was front and center for all that time. Many progressives insisted that it was obvious that Trump colluded...there was simply no other possible explanation of his actions. Then Mueller reported that there was no there there. There was some confusion at first, of course...some tried the THE RUSSIANS MUST HAVE GOTTEN TO MUELLER, TOO line on for size...but that was apparently too crazy even for them. Then they shifted their attention to BARR LIED HE WASN'T ACTUALLY EXHONORATED...eventually, of course, they settled for basically flushing the Mueller report down the memory hole...and continuing, basically, to believe the collusion story...
   Now cometh equal and opposite investigations...and they're given only the bare minimum of attention...except insofar as they're derided as based on conspiracy theories and declared threats to the republic.
   If you're looking for something to be concerned about, look no further than the radically differential treatment of these two stories.
   Progressivism is, perhaps, a victim of its own success--not that it doesn't have plenty of vices. But, having taken over the entire cultural superstructure, it is locked into the groupthinkiest groupthink I've ever seen outside of religions that are technically religious. It's already plagued by irrationality and magical thinking...but, having taken over all the institutions that are supposed to provide checks against groupthink and other errors, it's become absurdly easy for progressives to ignore or discount information that they don't like.
   I saw in the NYT the other day that one of their in-house op-eders ran some kind of Who's the worst Trump appointment? survey. Apparently Barr "won" and it wasn't close. Maybe keep that in mind after the dust settles on all this. It may end up being a really telling data point.


* Yeah, yeah, 'doth' is singular. I'm willing to look the other way.