Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center spent a good chunk of last year hyping John Durham's investigate-the-investigators probe attacking previous probes of Donald Trump, repeatedly hyping his work even as both prosecutions he attempted in court resulted in aquittals of the accused. When Durham issued a final report of his investigation -- in which he complained that Trump was investigated but did not recommend new charges or even offer recommendations on how to handle future investigations -- the MRC rushed to Durham's defense yet again. Nicholkas Fondacaro spent a May 15 post complaining that the Durham probe was essentially (and property) dismissed as a nothingburger:
On Monday, Special Council [sic] John Durham’s long-awaited report into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation fell out of the blue. The report faults the FBI and says they should never have opened Crossfire Hurricane since it was entirely based on “leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.” Despite how Durham spelled out the fact that the Trump-Russia probe was based on “raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence,” ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News stood behind it.
ABC chief Justice correspondent Thomas reported that Durham’s report found 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.’”
He noted: “The bureau relied on ‘raw, unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence.’ Noting that ‘there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents.’” He even admitted the infamous Steele Dossier was part of that effort.
But Thomas still insisted that then-candidate Donald Trump provided all the evidence the FBI needed to open the investigation:
Fondacaro praised a different reporter for spoutng a conservative-friendly narrative: "In stark contrast, on CBS Evening News, senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge didn’t hold back on Durham’s swipes at the FBI. She noted he called out how 'senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor' and 'relied on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.'"
The next day, Alex Christy groused about another commentator pointing out the failure of the Durham investigation:
MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough reacted to Special Counsel John Durham’s report that was fiercely critical of the FBI and the Trump-Russia probe by dismissing it as a waste of taxpayer money and that the main takeaway of the report is how bad Durham and Republicans look.
In one of his typical rants, Scarborough tried to find a silver lining, “The only good news is at least his four-year taxpayer funded boondoggle, that was funded by working Americans, paying him to walk through the fevered swamps of Trumpism is over.”
[...]
Bursting MSNBC’s bubble is not the same thing as destroying one’s reputation, but after a ranting about the GOP’s poor relationship to the FBI and at no point considering the demise of the Russia collusion narrative might have something to do with that, Scarborough returned to Durham, “Four years, millions and millions of dollars, and nothing to show for it but some really bad, humiliating headlines for pro-Trump newspapers.”
Curtis Houck similarly whined that pro-Durham narratives weren't followed in non-right-wing media:
Trump-Russia probe Special Counsel John Durham’s report dropped late Monday afternoon and, with only one criminal conviction (via a plea agreement), the liberal media were ebullient in celebrating the lack of mass indictments some billed as a foregone conclusion. It was nonetheless damaging as it found “neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
On CNN and MSNBC, they were only missing in their initial coverage was champagne bottles as they falsely claimed “there’s absolute nothing new here,” there was still Trump-Russia collusion, and Crossfire Hurricane was wholly necessary.
Fondacaro took aim at one particular commentator:
Hours after the Department of Justice released the long-awaited report from Special Council [sic] John Durham into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, finding the FBI had no evidence and no reason to open the investigation to begin with, former FBI deputy director-turned-CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe finally crawled out from his hidey-hole Monday night to address the story. Of course, AC360 host Anderson Cooper gave him the floor to freely lash out at Durham and continue to lie about the investigation.
Going to McCabe only a couple minutes into his timeslot, Cooper noted that McCabe’s “name comes up 58 times in the Durham report” and tried to spin the fact that the Durham report found “the FBI never had evidence of collusion.” He asserted “[t]hat's not a legal term” when everyone understood that to be shorthand for Donald Trump being a Russian asset.
“What's your response?” Cooper simply teed up McCabe to defend himself, with little citation from the report to press his guest on. McCabe was fired for lying to federal investigators about his leaking to the press regarding the Hillary Clinton-e-mail probe.
Actually, McCabe was fired by Donald Trump just days before his retirement in a fit of retaliation over, and he was eventually awarded his full pension. But Fondacaro continued his attacks, huffing that "Cooper gave McCabe free rein to lash out at Durham and the investigation. McCabe proclaimed that Durham’s work 'was never a legitimate investigation,' just a 'political errand' for Trump."
Houck returned to rant about another person who didn't adhere to right-wing narratives:
In much the same way he did hours earlier on Monday’s NBC Nightly News, NBC Justice correspondent Ken Dilanian — who should be known as CIA Ken for his fealty to the agency — surfaced on Tuesday’s Today show to further spin for his real bosses in the intelligence community on Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the Trump-Russia probe.
Dilanian was shameless from the get-go in dismissing the report that found the Trump-Russia collusion investigation should have never even be launched: “Durham’s report is filled with blistering criticism of the FBI...but critics say Durham’s investigation ultimately fell flat, even though it lasted more than a year longer than the actual Russia investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”
Channeling the criticisms of the Clinton special counsels on their length, Durham similarly tut-tutted over the fact that “Durham brought just two criminal cases that ended in acquittals and his report called for no major changes.”
[...]
[ABC's Pierre] Thomas closed by implying the probe was a waste: “Durham’s investigation, which cost more than $6.5 million, falls far short of proving that there was a deep state conspiracy against Trump. Durham only convicted one lower level FBI official of misconduct...and two major trials ended in acquittal.”
Worse yet, he further justified the hounding of Team Trump based on the Trump Tower meeting.
So, was it the Trump Tower meeting, Trump calling out to Russia to “find” Hillary Clinton’s missing e-mails, or George Papadopoulos? Hard to keep it all straight!
Houck didn't explain to his readers what the Trump Tower meeting was, let alone why it should not have resulted in an investigation.
The MRC also published a May 17 column by Ben Shapiro defending Durham, as well as a May 20 column by Jeffrey Lord claiming that Pulitizer Prizes awarded to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their work exposing connections between the Trump campaign and Russia were somhow invalidated by Durham's investigation, though he offered no specific claim in any of that work that Durham contradicted.
