While I find this angle from the Federalist a refreshing change from the usual doom & gloom, I don't find it particularly convincing.
measuring Durham’s performance by the outcome in United States v. Sussmann would be a mistake. Also, especially in the case of an acquittal, it would ignore the valuable information exposed related to the broader Spygate scandal. Using that gauge as a measure, the special counsel’s office succeeded wildly.
My repeated refrain on the concept of "proof":
How does it relate to this topic though where there was an investigation?
Was the Durham
investigation a misnomer? What has he been doing all this time?
