The Investigations into the Russian Investigation Have Lasted 69% Longer than the Russian Investigation Itself

The AP just broke the news that Bill Barr made John Durham a Special Counsel back in October so Durham can continue to investigate the Russian investigation after Joe Biden becomes President. Given the indications that Billy Barr had closed down the remaining aspects of the Russian investigation by September 18, and that Jeffrey Jensen closed his investigation by October 22, here are the presumed dates of the Russian investigation and some of the known investigations into the Russian investigation.

The investigations into the Russian investigation, combined, have lasted 2557 days. And this is not an inclusive list (for example, it doesn’t include John Bash’s investigation into the unmasking of Trump officials, which found no wrongdoing).

Even without all the investigations included, the investigations into the Russian investigation have, thus far, lasted 69% longer than the investigation itself.

And it’s still going.


21 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    Perhaps this serves the purpose for AG Barr to remind DJT that he’s a team player to keep this particular snipe hunt open. All sorts of amorphous conspiracy theories can be leaked out before the inevitable finding of nothing to see here. That’s missing in the election issue since there are many independent and transparent alternate sources to dispute anything AG Barr could say at this time to align with DJT.

  2. joel fisher says:

    I don’t think it’s an accident that this news and the “no fraud which could effect the election” news came out on the same day.

      • joel fisher says:

        Then the news of the pardon/bribe wheeling and dealing comes out on top of the 1st two. The fact that the release of court documents relating to the pardon/bribe investigation would occur at a predictable point in time was the driver for the other two being disclosed today.

  3. Peterr says:

    Republicans may not be able to govern, but by GOD they know how to run investigations into the ground. See Benghazi, Ken Starr, Joe McCarthy, etc.

    • Fran of the North says:

      I don’t recall which of our pithy commenters brought this up in a thread a few weeks back, but the gist was that Republicans were masters of the messaging game, and Democrats couldn’t stay on point.

      Republicans have two primary plays in their playbook:

      1) Repeat the same story over and over until it becomes ‘fact’ by force of repetition

      2) Bury bad news by droning on and on until the story is so tired nobody pays any more attention.

      The Durham Investigation is probably using play #2 in a preemptive strike on any further investigations or news leaks, more urgent now than ever since the WH is changing hands.

      • Peterr says:

        In his book “Idiot America,” the great Charlie Pierce put forward the Three Great Premises of Idiot America:

        1. Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.
        2. Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.
        3. Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it.

        Charlie wrote “Idiot America” 11 years ago, and events since then have only proven the way in which these premises have been embraced by the Idiots. Trump’s election in 2016 was the epitome of all three.

      • BobCon says:

        I’d be curious what ability he has to expand the scope of the investigation, because he’s obviously drilling a dry hole and it’s never going to start producing anything serious no matter how much deeper he goes.

        Without a hook into something better, I don’t see this as anything useful for the GOP — I doubt it even works as bait for an overreaction by Biden. At most it seems like fodder for a “troubling questions” headline in the NY Times and not much else.

        • ThomasH says:

          I was wondering about almost the same thing: can Durham be redirected by Biden’s AG? Perhaps something about the sabotage of the USPS, or even the origins of the “investigate the investigators investigation?”

    • Rugger9 says:

      Or Manafort who had more fingers in pies close to the campaign, but the fact that DJT’s WH is (allegedly) not willing to leave a nickel on the table is very much in character. Cash for pardons is rather gauche but expected. Revelations like this is why the Biden DOJ needs to dig and prosecute.

    • Peterr says:

      Every lawyer who has had their phones and other equipment seized in the last 9 months as part of a govt investigation is sweating bullets right now.

  4. John Paul Jones says:

    From the CNN report: “The political strategy to obtain a presidential pardon was ‘parallel’ to and distinct from [redacted]’s role as an attorney-advocate for [redacted name]”

    Could be several people, but my guess would be Sydney Powell since her name has come up previously in connection with meetings with Trump about her client. If true, it doesn’t invalidate Flynn’s pardon, but might add a new charge. Entirely speculative, of course, but that would be one fit.

    • PeterS says:

      I can’t see Flynn needing to offer a “substantial political contribution” in return for his pardon. Or are you alluding to another client of Powell?

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        The “substantial political contribution” doesn’t have to be in cash. Campaigns usually welcome in-kind contributions – Sid Powell’s or Rudy Giuliani’s “free” legal services [sic], for example.

        Thing is, they still have to be given a cash-equivalent value and reported. But reporting, like every other form of paperwork, is evidence of conduct that Trump usually goes to great lengths to avoid creating. That happens to be a violation of election laws, which need a bit more teeth – about the size of the alien’s in A Quiet Place.

  5. John Langston says:

    If this guy is a real prosecutor and not a hack, how can he separate this investigation from the Russia investigation?

    Could this guy just take the baton from Mueller’s teams and press on? I mean Flynn lied, it was a legitimate counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia. I’d wager there’s more to find about Flynn than Strock.

    Maybe the next AG won’t have appoint a special prosecutor but only inherit one? Biden has clean hands.

  6. emptywheel says:

    FWIW, a number of people have argued this bribery scheme pertains to Elloitt Broidy and his co-defendants. That seems the most likely so far. It’s not Stone, not Flynn, not Nader, not Parnas.

    • graham firchlis says:

      Broidy makes real sense (check spelling on Elliott, i before o).

      Quite accustomed to making deals involving multimillion dollar bribes.

Comments are closed.