word for it for starters. Sure sounds like Mr. Durham has serious issues with that conclusion.

But that's beside the point. Again, even if you agree with the finding that the investigation legitimately met the apparently low threshold to legitimately be started (and unlike Mr. Durham, I have no reason or evidence to question Horowitz' finding of that), that's a bit more than a "very technical narrow distinction" to claim it should've continued after they found out the truth about Steele, the dossier, and from its primary source. Let alone to portray it differently from what was found to the FISA court for renewals.