My fault for being sloppy. I was on my phone.
I'm not trying to make the FBI look better. One of my very first comments was to the effect that this looked bad for the FBI. I'm just pushing back against the idea being floated that the report somehow exposes some huge deal that we should all be outraged about.
But, I do not agree that "a nonpartisan FBI" would have concluded it was all bullshit and no further investigation was warranted. As I said above in the discussion about comparing this to the Clinton thing, there were unique circumstances in this case which called for extra scrutiny:
1. The impetus of the inquiry were alleged statements made by an actual member of the Trump campaign.
2. Those statements were reported to us directly from a trusted ally whose agent was personally present.
3. Those statements were made in the context of actual real world events that happened shortly after they were made, which seemed to align closely with what the alleged statements predicted.
4. The foreign government involved in those events is decidedly an adversary of American interests.
5. There was other intelligence that indicated this adversary did in fact intend to attempt to meddle in our election.
Durham glosses over all that by stressing that P's original statements were unverified (not that he didn't say it, but that it wasn't verified that he was speaking the truth), and that the other contextual factors weren't included in the original documentation opening the investigation (while conceding nevertheless that they were discussed when the opening was being considered).
So, long story short, I think there was good reason for the FBI to look into this, even with a non-partisan lens.
