20 Months: A Comparison of the Mueller and Durham Investigations

Because Jonathan Turley and John Cornyn are being stupid on the Internet, I did a Twitter thread comparing the relative output of the Mueller and Durham investigations in their first 18 months. Actually, Durham has been investigating the Russian investigation for 20 months already.

So I did a comparison of the Mueller and Durham investigations over their first 20 months. Here’s what that comparison looks like.

So, in 20 months, Durham went on a boondoggle trip to Italy with Bill Barr to chase conspiracy theories, charged one person, and had his top investigator quit due to political pressure.

In the Mueller investigation’s first 20 months, his prosecutors had charged 33 people and 3 corporations (just Roger Stone was charged after that) and, with Manafort’s forfeiture, paid for much of their investigation.

Update: I’ve corrected the Manafort forfeiture claim. While I haven’t checked precisely how much the US Treasury pocketed by selling Manafort’s properties, I think the declining value of Trump Tower condos means that Manafort’s forfeiture didn’t quite pay for the entire investigation. I’ve also corrected in which month Manafort was found guilty in EDVA.

Update: In response to the Durham appointment, American Oversight reposted the travel records from the Italy boondoggle, which was actually in September, not October (Barr also made a trip to Italy in August 2019 for the same stated purpose, so I wonder if there were two boondoggles). I’ve corrected the timeline accordingly.

105 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    This is very good, concise and the courtier press starting with Chuck Todd will not be interested because they want DJT in the news to sell ads.

    However, something like this would be very useful in the hands of Katie Porter or Ted Lieu in upcoming hearings on Durham’s conduct, and since as Special Counsel he will not be replaced when Biden is inaugurated he’ll be invited in to explain himself. A very good sound bite is here for the news cycle.

  2. Chris.EL says:

    Seems a good idea to research what Barr and Durham’s actual movements, actions and interviews consisted of in Italy.

    Boondoggle for sure!

    Thanks for this great information summary!

    • Rugger9 says:

      I would think that would be part of the review Biden’s AG would do, and since Durham is still Special Counsel he can be directed to explain himself to the new AG or to the Oversight Committee.

      That particular European snipe hunt was ineffective and never fully explained, including how much it cost the taxpayers.

      • subtropolis says:

        I believe that had to do with trying to sort out who Joseph Mifsud was really working for. Barr once stated, more or less, that he went along to vouch for his man to the Italian Justice Minister, Intelligence peeps, etc.

        • Rugger9 says:

          That tracing did not need to be done by AG Barr in person, nor did AG Barr have to “vouch” for Durham in person. The mission was more about creating Biden dirt than looking for Mifsud. As is standard for Barr stuff, the Mifsud story was a red herring.

  3. harpie says:


    11:13 AM · Dec 6, 2020

    Update in the GOP challenge to PA’s election results: Alito’s deadline for a response to Rep. Kelly et al.’s petition was changed – it’s now due Dec. 8 at 9am, instead of Dec. 9. Recall Dec. 8 is the federal safe harbor deadline for states to certify.
    No explanation provided.

    • harpie says:

      Here’s Steve Vladeck on 12/3:

      7:56 PM · Dec 3, 2020

      Here’s the Kelly application at #SCOTUS for an emergency injunction—which basically asks the Court to effectively de-certify Pennsylvania’s presidential electors pending appeal of the dismissal of his challenge to *all* mail-in voting in the Commonwealth: [LINK]

      As for the legal claim, we’ve gone from
      1] “state supreme courts can’t change state election laws without violating the federal Constitution” to
      2] “state supreme courts have a federal constitutional obligation to enforce state constitutional election rules *against* the legislature.”
      Good. Luck. With. That.

      8:25 PM · Dec 3, 2020

      Pennsylvania has already certified its electors, and the timing of Alito’s order means #SCOTUS wouldn’t even be able to act on this nonsense before the federal safe-harbor deadline—which is December 8.

      Pretty clever of Justice Alito—and also a clear sign that this has no chance.

      So, “a clear sign that this has no chance” no more.

      • P J Evans says:

        I really hope that someone asks Kelly how this does NOT invalidate all the other stuff on the ballots in PA.

    • Eureka says:

      Related shenanigans from Friday, December 4: after Rudy et al. attack, PA GOPers ask [PA] US Reps to do the coup:

      Jeremy Roebuck:

      “Court order, state GOP leaders effectively end Trump’s dreams of legislative reversal of Pa.’s election results” [link]
      11:25 AM · Dec 4, 2020

      “UPDATE: Things got strange after this story went up. Giuliani attacked state GOP leaders, one of his allies called them “traitors.” Then, within hours, 2 R’s who had unequivocally stated a day earlier that the legislature wouldn’t interfere, asked Congress to do it instead.” [thread continues to new article]

      Stephen Caruso:

      “News: 75 Pa. House and Senate Republicans have signed a letter to Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation calling for them to dispute the 2020 election results in Congress. Among the signatories is House Speaker Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster. [link; this is a mega-thread reporting the shifting drama throughout the day, including a number of signatories denying they’d actually signed on and one vice versa, leaving a total of 64; QTs AG Shapiro, Gov Wolf; links reporting at Penn Capital-Star; WHYY]
      3:18 PM · Dec 4, 2020

      “If you’ve gotten to the bottom of this thread and are thinking, “hmmm, please tell me more about the internal [wrangling] of the Pa. House as it debates its election response,” I have a story for you! [link from Nov. 22] [thread yet continues…]

      “UPDATE: 64 Pennsylvania Republican legislators, 11 less then on the original draft, signed a letter asking Congress to challenge the 2020 election results. Here’s the updated letter [link]”
      8:17 PM · Dec 4, 2020

      • Eureka says:

        Jeremy Roebuck:

        “To recap: 1) GOP leadership in Pennsylvania’s legislature issued a letter Thursday unequivocally stating they would play no role in challenging the appointment of Biden electors to award the state’s 20 Electoral College votes.”


        “2) Giuliani tweets that America should be “ashamed” of them. Bernie Kerick calls them “cowards” and “traitors” and Jenna Ellis retweets.”

        “3) Within hours, state House GOP caucus begins circulating a new letter from 75 members, including House Speaker and Majority Leader who signed the earlier letter. This one calls on congressmen to reject PA’s electors when Congress meet to certify Electoral College vote in Jan.”

        “4) Several of those 75 signatories then say they never gave permission for their names to be added to that list. State House GOP caucus releases a “revised” version with 11 fewer names. Blames a clerical error.”

        “They’ve had quite a day. Again, you can read all about it here: [links to the below]”

        After Trump team calls them ‘cowards’ and ‘traitors,’ state GOP leaders urge Congress to reject Pa. election results

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          They are cowards if they backtrack because of a Rudy tweet. They should have issued a “fuck you Rudy” reply (in more formal language than that, but with the essence clear)

        • Eureka says:

          I note that Rudy’s hospitalization comes 11 days after the known-COVID hotbed Pettysburg Address. I do not have it in me to do the public-info contact trace (for that, or his other circles of exposure; also he was about to carry it, with the roadshow, to AZ).

          But his bully tweet — claiming PA GOPers “misled” him and Trump (included in article above) — harkens back to that day and the (COVID-ridden) PA legislators’ trip to see POTUS afterwards.

          Marcy has said how, surely, one of these swing-state contingents must have taped Trump criming — for leverage; a way out, perhaps at their oligarch’s (intuited) behest. Her bet has been on the MI travelers. I’d say the response of the PA GOPers suggests that they do not, in fact, have the goods, nor a funding source with a distaste for chaos-agent Trump. [And (COVID-ridden) ringleader Mastriano, guest/mutual-wanker of the likes of Bannon and Kirk, would seem to see his future with the Mercer contingent.]

          Maybe the DeVoses need to invest more in PA, for the sake of stability in their investments (transnational becomes interstate again!).

      • Eureka says:

        WaPo tonight with an update on this related coup prong:

        President Trump called the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives twice during the past week to make an extraordinary request for help reversing his loss in the state, reflecting a broadening pressure campaign by the president and his allies to try to subvert the 2020 election result.

        The calls, confirmed by House Speaker Bryan Cutler’s office […]


        “The president said, ‘I’m hearing about all these issues in Philadelphia, and these issues with your law,’ ” said Cutler spokesman Michael Straub, describing the House speaker’s two conversations with Trump. “ ‘What can we do to fix it?’ ”


        Cutler told the president that the legislature had no power to overturn the state’s chosen slate of electors, Straub said.

        But late last week, the House speaker [*in a 180-degree whiplash-by-proxy from statement issued the day before*] was among about 60 Republican state lawmakers who sent a letter to Pennsylvania’s congressional representatives urging them to object to the state’s electoral slate on Jan. 6, when Congress is set to formally accept the results.

        Although such a move is highly unlikely to gain traction, at least one Pennsylvania Republican, Rep. Scott Perry, said in an interview Monday that he will heed the request and dispute the state’s electors.


        The embrace of Trump’s false claims by many Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers shows how the president’s baseless attacks on the integrity of the election have gained ground with his supporters. Protesters chanting “Stop the steal,” some with firearms, demonstrated over the weekend at the homes of Cutler in Pennsylvania and the Democratic secretary of state in Michigan.

        [… MANY intervening paragraphs]

        Straub said that the calls between Cutler and Trump were “amicable” and that the president did not “pressure” the lawmaker in a hostile way.

        Yet Straub also acknowledged that the pressure on Cutler — who faces reelection as House speaker on Jan. 5 — has been intense. His office phone system, which has the capacity to store many thousands of voice mails, has been completely filled “several times” over the past week, Straub said.

        Emphasis added.

        Also on the case harpie is posting about (more on this from Hasen, to follow separately):

        Meanwhile, a group of 32 Republican state legislators joined a legal effort to try to nullify the certification of Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania, claiming in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that they may be empowered to step in “when a state has failed to choose its electors on election day.”

        Trump asks Pennsylvania House speaker for help overturning election results, personally intervening in a third state
        By Amy Gardner, Josh Dawsey and Rachael Bade
        Dec. 7, 2020 at 7:47 p.m. EST

        • Eureka says:

          Don’t get too excited about Toomey’s rebuke: he blamed “liberals” and “the press” for GOPers believing conspiracy theory bullshit. He remains a coward, if an approaching “bothsides” varietal:

          Trump campaign to overturn Pennsylvania election results ‘unacceptable,’ Pat Toomey says

          But Toomey also faulted Democrats and liberals for some of their actions.

          “It’s also important to point out that this isn’t the only thing that has undermined people’s confidence in our government and our electoral system,” Toomey said. “A lot of Republicans across the commonwealth and across the country are sympathetic to some of the allegations being made by the president because they’ve witnessed the way he’s been treated for the last four years by the left and the press.”

          He pointed to calls to impeach Trump before he was sworn in, “an attempt to impeach him over a phone call” with Ukraine’s president, and the so-called Steele dossier, a document of unsubstantiated rumors about Trump and Russia compiled by a former British intelligence officer. Some of the information was later cited in FBI applications to wiretap a Trump campaign adviser.

          “The accumulation of these outrageous attacks leads people to wonder, ‘Well, what wouldn’t they do?’” Toomey said.

          I don’t know who could read that and not be incensed. He should have shut down Trump and allies’ chicanery-couping, full stop.

    • harpie says:

      Thanks for all the added information, Eureka and all.

      Steve Vladeck wrote an explanatory thread:
      1:23 PM · Dec 6, 2020

      1. A lot of reactions today to Justice Alito moving up the deadline for PA to respond to @MikeKellyPA’s application for an emergency injunction to throw out PA’s certification of its presidential electors.

      Here’s a quick #thread on why none of this matters—or is going to matter: [THREAD]

      I want to believe he’s right about this, but… :-(
      I guess my trust that things will be alright is not very high at the moment.

      • harpie says:

        After he finished the thread, he appended a correction affecting this:

        7. [1:23 PM · Dec 6, 2020] So let’s get to that claim. At its core, Kelly is challenging “Act 77″—a 2019 law enacted by the (Republican-led) PA legislature that dramatically expanded mail-in voting. Critically, the PA Supreme Court has *already* held that Act 77 is *consistent* with the PA Constitution. […]

        14. [2:49 PM · Dec 6, 2020] One correction: The PA Supreme Court has *not* resolved a facial challenge to Act 77’s expansion of mail-in voting (it’s rejected *other* challenges to Act 77). That doesn’t change anything, because whether Act 77 violates the PA Constitution is still a question of *PA* law. […]

        All I know right now is that ALITO HAS GONE ROGUE.

    • Eureka says:

      Non-interfering (well, that was last Thursday) PA legislators (who wrote and voted for Act 77 law at issue) w/ brief to SCOTUS along w PA GOP (which skirts Kelly et al.’s main claim, because … see prior arguments) arguing PA SC should not have dismissed over laches (how embarrassing):

      Steven Mazie: “And the brief from 23 House Republicans just sort of murmurs that Rep. Kelly should get the remedy he seeks (without naming it). [highlighted screenshot of brief; QT of Hason below]”
      12:15 AM · Dec 8, 2020

      Rick Hasen: “#ELB: Super Interesting: In Rep. Kelly’s Case Seeking to Overturn PA Results for President, Brief from PA Republican Party Does NOT Support Argument Election Should Be Overturned [link]”
      11:41 PM · Dec 7, 2020

      From Hasen’s blog:

      Why did the PA Republican Party do this? Probably because they felt they had to file something for political reasons, but they could not endorse the bananas theory which goes 180 degrees against the argument they make in another case pending before the Supreme Court (involving the 3 day extension of the deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots).

    • harpie says:

      1] GOP at SCOTUS and 2] GOP in Pa – – something in common;

      Thomas W. King, III, Esquire Counsel of Record
      Thomas E. Breth, Esquire
      Dillon McCandless King Coulter & Graham, LLP
      128 W. Cunningham Street Butler, Pennsylvania 16001
      (724) 283-2200 [email protected] [email protected]

      [1] At Scotus:] General Counsel of the Pennsylvania Republican Party Counsel for Amicus Curiae

      [2] In Pa:] Counsel for Plaintiffs, and Special Counsel for the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society

      • harpie says:

        1] [via Marcy]: [EW:] https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336151798076362761
        10:33 PM · Dec 7, 2020

        Next, various members of Congress, including @mattgaetz, @SteveKingIA and @replouiegohmert, lament “the increasing stridency and polarization that plague our processes.” They have, they say, been “firsthand witnesses” to this disturbing political trend. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162932/20201207191811200_20A98%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

      • harpie says:

        Klasfeld links to:

        How Trump’s Legal Challenges of the Election Results Turned into a Tax-Deductible ‘Coup’
        Dec 2nd, 2020, 10:03 am

        From far away, the dozens of lawsuits attempting to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory look like different beasts, but closer inspection reveals that many are a handful of charities apparently coordinating as different tentacles of the Trump campaign—like a Kraken, if you will. […]
        Here is a breakdown of some of the 501(c)3s and 501(c)4s behind the spate of last-gasp, pro-Trump lawsuits nationwide. […]

      • harpie says:


        The saint’s namesake charity, the Thomas More Society, has sought to invalidate election results across the country with help from Giuliani, whom the organization’s press release described as a partner of its so-called “Amistad Project.”
        “The Amistad Project has uncovered an organized effort involving multiple private organizations and partners working with government officials to design, fund, and implement an improper and illegal scheme to create an unconstitutional two-tiered election system to deliver the presidency to Joseph R. Biden,” Giuliani falsely claimed in a press release, in sharp contrast to his concession to a federal judge that he was not alleging fraud. […]
        The Chicago-based group, which reported more than $6 million in revenue in 2018, did not immediately respond to emails to their press representatives and attorney Erick Kaardal requesting comment.

    • harpie says:

      The THOMAS MORE SOCIETY probably had prime seats at the FEDERALIST SOCIETY meeting in early November to hear ALITO rant.

    • Eureka says:

      This morning, the Commonwealth of PA et al.’s response went up, preceded by an amicus for them by two PA state Dem senators (including a co-writer of Act 77).

      I have a question: do Justices (or, here, Alito) read briefs in any particular order, by custom or habit?

      The PA Dem senators’ amicus leads nicely into PA et al.’s lengthier response (by happenstance of reading order, prompting the question. Works as an after-reinforcer, too, of course).

      Example (from header for first arguments of each):

      Dem senators’ amicus:


      PA et al.:

      “Petitioners’ Legal Contentions Are Patently Spurious and Unworthy of Review by this Court”



    • Eureka says:

      re this case and safe harbor, Hasen has been tweeting things like this lately:

      Rick Hasen: “To be clear, I don’t expect the petition to go anywhere. But let’s not read safe harbor as some magical deadline.”

      If you click on Goldman’s threads below, there’s a nice diagram in the replies with decision rules as to all that can happen into January (the linked tweet links to both unlinked ones, FYI):

      Rick Hasen: “I spent a good part of the day fielding press calls about tomorrow, the so-called “safe harbor day.” The best way to think of it is not as a drop dead deadline but as another nail in the coffin.”


      Ira Goldman 🦆🦆🦆: “@rickhasen Of course “safe harbor day” is a day, and it may be a harbor, but it’s no more safe than anything else covered by a parliamentary rule. In related news… [QT below]:


      Ira Goldman 🦆🦆🦆: “January 6, 2021. The day Congress will count the electoral votes. But it’s also the day die-hard Trumpsters in Congress will have to make a choice: Will they object to various states’ votes & thereby make their fellow Repubs *vote* whether or not Trump lost fair & square. 🍿 1/” [thread]

      • Eureka says:

        Related items x2 (distributed krackeny):

        Jeremy Roebuck: “And just your daily reminder…. The Trump campaign has still not filed anything to appeal its own PA case to SCOTUS , 10 days after the 3rd Circ rejected it and Giuliani and Co. vowed they’d be vindicated at the Supreme Court.”
        9:43 AM · Dec 7, 2020

        Steve Vladeck: “It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category: The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS. (Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.) [screenshots; thread…]”
        9:11 AM · Dec 8, 2020

        • P J Evans says:

          Oh dear sweet Ghu. I knew Paxton was an idjit, but I didn’t think he was that much of one. Unless he’s thinking it will look good on his resume when he applies for the job of AG to Trmp, sometime in the future in whatever universe they’re living in.

        • Eureka says:

          Ooh, another theory as to Paxton just popped up — pardon palooza, via Hasen:

          “One reader suggested to me the reason for Paxton to file this heaping pile of a lawsuit: he wants a Trump pardon for federal crimes (he can’t get one for the state crimes he’s under indictment for).
          FBI investigation of Paxton:

          [Links article:]

          FBI is investigating Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, AP report says
          The bureau is probing allegations that Paxton broke the law by using the attorney general’s office to serve the interests of a political donor, two unnamed sources told the Associated Press.
          10:59 AM · Dec 8, 2020

        • P J Evans says:

          Paxton is already in legal trouble – with the SEC, from 5 years ago. So his ethics are already in question, and his morals are probably no better. (Especially since he fired several of his staff for whistle-blowing on him earlier this year.)

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Can other States volunteer to be sued by Texas?

          What if 49 out of 50 States of The Union signed on to be sued by Texas??

          Would anti-judicial-activists at SCOTUS disenfranchise 49 out of 50 States of The Union just to get Trump four more years???

  4. Chris.EL says:

    This is a little off topic: has anyone else noticed Trump really seems to get off on killing people?

    There is a case — man set for execution soon — before Trump leaves office. From Huffington Post: “Brandon Bernard Is Scheduled To Be Executed. 5 Jurors Who Sentenced Him Don’t Think He Should Die.
    Bernard, sentenced to death for acting as an accomplice to a crime when he was 18, is scheduled to be killed weeks before President Trump leaves office.”…

    Defense attorneys are arguing the execution is illegal because all appeals have not been exhausted.
    I’m forever reminded of the line from (Tom Cruise) movie Jack Reacher, about the types that join the military so they have legal means for killing people!!!

    That’s Trump in a *nut* shell!
    I’ve got to get the book written by Jerrold M. Post on Trump, “Dangerous Charisma…”!!
    Also this:


    • P J Evans says:

      The Central Park Five were exonerated years ago, but he still wants them executed.
      (It makes me wonder if he *wants* to watch executions.)
      It’s part of his mental problems, that he’s a sadist.

        • harpie says:

          Yeah, even after the POPE recently wrote an encyclical in opposition:
          Pope Francis closes the door on the death penalty in ‘Fratelli Tutti
          James Martin, S.J. October 04, 2020

          […] In “Fratelli Tutti,” the pope grounds his opposition to capital punishment not only in mercy, perhaps his most characteristic spiritual theme, but also in opposition to revenge. “Fear and resentment can easily lead to viewing punishment in a vindictive and even cruel way, rather than as part of a process of healing and reintegration into society,” he writes.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I’m sure he would deny it, but Barr and his brethren worship a god who is very Old Testament, fire and brimstone. Their worldview evolves around elite entitlement, arrogance, and power. Religion is part of how they wield it.

          Barr’s paranoia – born of Vietnam, and the sexual and civil rights movements – gives him something in common with Trump and his predecessor, Mitchell Palmer. If Trump is playing McCarthy’s ignorant demagogue and Stephen Miller is Roy Cohn, Barr is J. Edgar.

        • Mickquinas says:

          Hi, just a little quibble. The depiction of the deity in the Hebrew Scriptures (referred to by Christians as the “Old Testament”) is far more nuanced than “fire and brimstone”. Jesus’ teachings and model as described in the Gospels are consistent with God as described in the Old Testament, delivering, blessing, feeding, leading, correcting, etc. particularly in ways that repeatedly subvert human social structures of power and vengeance.

          Chesed (lovingkindness), tzedekah (justice/right relationship/ethical social order), and shalom (peace, wholeness, thriving) are all foundational concepts that are part of the divine character described from Genesis to Malachi. Although fire and brimstone are present, the scale of the stories should be considered. And the New Testament includes similarly challenging depictions – the cursing of a fig tree to destruction, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in the early church, and so on.

          I think that you are entirely correct that their (Barr, et. al.) worldview revolves around power, and how to wield it. But they’re not exegeting Scripture, they’re isegeting their own desires to hold and wield supreme power with whatever justifications serve their purposes. As many who claim to follow Jesus while ignoring his ethic do.

          The division between “Old Testament” god of wrath and “New Testament” god of grace is an incorrect and artificial distinction that supports anti-Semitism and Christian supercessionism.

          To be clear, I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE on this thread anti-semitic. Just trying to invite reflection on a phrase and framing that is both prevalent and problematic and maybe should be abandoned.

        • Fraud Guy says:

          Not otherwise a fan of him, but Alan Dershowitz’s A Genesis of Justice discusses the development of the concept of justice through the Hebrew scriptures from the earliest, more retributive concepts to a more human, nuanced take.

        • P J Evans says:

          Slacktivist describes it as an arc that bends increasingly towards justice and doing right (“righteousness” as it should be understood).

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      Trump gets off on killing.
      From Salon, April 25, 2020. Chauncey DeVega interview with psychologist John Gartner…

      “I believe that Donald Trump is also a sexual sadist, who on some basic level enjoys and is aroused by watching people be afraid of him. In his mind, Trump is creating chaos and instability so that he can feel powerful.”

      later in the article…

      ‘Again, that behavior is part of the psychology of malignant narcissistic leaders. They are democidal. Malignant narcissistic leaders kill many of their own people through wars and political terror, but also through willful incompetence. These types of leaders actively do things that will kill large portions of the population. Causing harm is a type of addiction for them. Donald Trump’s addiction is only getting worse.”

      Again, this was back in April


        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          This is death penalty performance art. The GOP has signaled in so many ways (like not bucking Trump with Covid raging) that the lives of post-birth humans are expendable for political purposes. The death penalty is an obscenity, the clearest sign of American hypocrisy. Its main function is as a bargaining chip in negotiating plea deals, and the extreme bias with which it is sought by prosecutors and applied by juries betrays our profound racism and class prejudice. Barr tried to fool us by executing White people first, but now he’s showing his and the nation’s ugly hand.

      • Chris.EL says:

        Well that’s it!! His malignancy is broadcast every day!

        Why, oh why, do voters support him? Probably so they can, by extension, use the “baddest” weapon selected from the pile.

        It always seemed odd that Trump would go to the rallies, wallowing in the spectre of huge crowds; then, for “exercise” or “relaxation” go golfing, which is pretty solitary and not any kind of real physical exertion.

        It’s an excuse to get away from people, the office, the wife. To not have to interact with people. Whatta phony prick.

        They should close the air space over Washington DC for days around the inauguration; especially for Trump.

  5. pdaly says:

    Love the side by side timelines.

    Do you think the Oct 2020 date for Special Counsel appointment should have an asterisk indicating the appointment was not publicly known until December 2020?

  6. John Langston says:

    So Durham has been at it for 20 months and all he had to do was review government files and interview government personnel that couldn’t plead the 5th and still keep their jobs? Man, I hope he had Elliot Ness with him. At least he had “Billy Fatso”.

    Durham: keeping us safe from civil servants for 20 months and counting.

  7. greengiant says:

    Wonder if there is any chance the Biden AG names a special counsel to investigate Barr, Durham, Horiwitz and others?

    • Reader 21 says:

      I have no idea, my instinct is there’d be pressure on him to just move on—but I’d love it if Barr’s actions were subject to scrutiny, and that Durham will now report to an honest AG. As for Horowitz, I don’t think his reputation as a neutral arbiter is warranted, at this point—wasn’t he supposed to investigate those NY FBI agents who were feeding Rudy anti-Clinton leaks (thus pressuring Comey to forge ahead with that notorious and ill-advised late October 2016 press conference, days before the election) whatever happened to that investigation?

    • timbo says:

      Enforcing the Hatch act would be a good start. The current DOJ hasn’t bothered to even care about it for months or years now.

    • Chris.EL says:

      A Covid diagnosis could explain some of Rudy’s coo-coo behavior since the Covid can mess with many aspects of the body’s functioning.

      (Or maybe this is the excuse to pull him out of the game and bench him!) Who possibly is ready to step in? Tiffany?

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      Rudy is covid positive?
      Wonder how that happened.

      (actually, I wonder why he didn’t test positive sooner)

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        I wondered the same thing. But it is actually more than just testing positive, he is hospitalized.

        Instagram is blowing up with memes.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          No surprise, given his age and probable co-morbidities. Hope he recovers. I also hope he lives a peaceful obscure retirement.

    • Timmer says:

      Maybe I read it here, but: there was proof at his flop sweat news conference, that Rudy is full of shit and that he IS leaking.

  8. ducktree says:

    Slightly OT: The Warnock / Loeffler debate is tonight at 7:00 p.m. EST and will be streamed at https://www.gpb.org/

    Since I’m watching from the PST zone, I’ll be having broiled bacon-wrapped scallops on the pupu platter ~ washed down with perfect gin martini(s)… Cheers!

      • vvv says:

        Indeed, but the martini’s sound a little wet (I like ’em extra-dry and dirty, altho’ I had just cool water 2nite.)

        • Eureka says:

          I was raised in a proper household that contained vermouth, but, oddly, have no adult recollection of vermouthy beverages. I guess there is just too much beer.

        • vvv says:

          I’ll note that vermouth, which is actually a flavoured fortified wine, can be pretty good o’er ice on a hot afternoon, or a Sunday morn.

        • Eureka says:

          Well, yes! By the _description_ I wondered so — which caused this reflection on what kind of adult household are we running here sans vermouth. I am glad you weighed back in with serving suggestions. 2021: time to live a little more.

          ETA: and been meaning to add, glad you dodged that dance w the rona & dtr is improving.

        • vvv says:

          Thanks for that. Daughter is improving but says she has no sense of smell altho’ taste is coming. But she has a pending MRI for a possible ligament tear in her wrist that upon exam the doc told her she should be screaming when he palpates it – she has no or very little pain sensation, and no hunger cues – the doc assured her all will come back.

          White vermouth on the rocks is slightly sweet and fairly bland but refreshing. Red vermouth on the rocks is, IMO, unpalatable, altho’ I do like Manhattans.

        • P J Evans says:

          ISTR that we had vermouth and gin, on the top shelf in a cupboard, for my uncle who would come through every so often, on his way home from somewhere in the Far East. (He was a senior engineer at an offshore drilling company.)

  9. Molly Pitcher says:

    Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California is Biden’s pick for Health and Human Services. I guess we can give him up, now that he won’t have Trump to sue anymore.

    • P J Evans says:

      Means that he won’t be able to go after Big Ag (and Newsom) for things like killing the Delta. Which he should have done already.

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          Well, better HHS than AG.

          I’m sure some of it is payment for his relentless sueing of Trump and the administration.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh, he was never going to be AG.

          I see that Clyburn is lobbying Biden for Marcia Fudge to be named AG. That would be a huge mistake. Fudge is far less qualified than Alberto Gonzales or Whitaker.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Fudge seems committed and an excellent networker. But what qualifications does a former suburban Cleveland mayor and now congresscritter have to run the USDA, DoJ or HHS?

          If the issue is how close she is to Biden and how well tied in she is into networks on the Hill, that’s’s one thing. But, as with Becerra, she would need a solid deputy, who knows the substantive stuff.

        • Alan Charbonneau says:

          There’s someone less qualified than Whitaker?

          P.s. on Twitter I mentioned Whittaker and someone replied with a photo of 1950’s horror movie actor Tor Johnson. A side-by-side view does look like they were separated at birth.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Good for California. It’s not obvious what background he has that’s suitable for HHS. Biden should have looked for a medically-qualified, younger version of Fauci. Maybe that’s the profile Becerra should demand as deputy head of HHS.

    • Chris.EL says:

      Barr doesn’t want to deal with the mountains of paperwork he’s generated; let some other poor slob organize the mess!

      Poor Rudy. Been thinking of his fondness for cigars. At his age, with Covid, he’ll be very lucky to recover.

  10. Eureka says:

    AZ GOP tweeting dangerously:

    John Fetterman: “The AZ GOP put out a casting call for martyrs over Twitter. This is truly bonkers and unbelievably dangerous. I’ve been saying all along about how *punitive* it is to be a Republican who just simply acknowledges electoral *reality*.”


    Arizona Republican Party: “He is. Are you?”

    Quoting the “National Organizer for Stop the Steal”:

    “I am willing to give my life for this fight.”

Comments are closed.