675 Days In, the Durham Investigation Has Lasted Longer than the Mueller Investigation

Today marks the 675th day of the Durham investigation into the origins and conduct of the investigation that became the Mueller investigation. That means Durham’s investigation has lasted one day longer than the entire Mueller investigation, which Republicans complained lasted far too long.

The single solitary prosecution Durham has obtained in that span of time in which Mueller prosecuted George Papadopoulos, Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Richard Pinedo, Alex Van der Zwan, Michael Cohen (for his lies about Trump’s Trump Tower Moscow deal) was the guilty plea of Kevin Clinesmith, based on conduct discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

In addition to those prosecutions, Mueller referred further Cohen charges to SDNY, Sam Patten for prosecution to DC, and Bijan Kian for prosecution in EDVA. Mueller charged Roger Stone and handed that prosecution off to DC. He further charged Konstantin Kilimnik, 12 IRA trolls, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, and 12 GRU officers. He referred Paul Manafort’s influence peddling partners, Republican and Democratic alike, for further investigation, leading to the failed prosecution of Greg Craig. Mueller referred 12 other matters — most still sealed — for further investigation, along with the Egyptian bribery investigation originally started in DC.

Meanwhile, Durham has never released a public budget, though by regulation he had to submit a budget request to DOJ in December.

Say what you will about Mueller’s investigation. But it was an investigation that showed real results. Durham, meanwhile, has been churning over the work that DOJ IG already did for as long as Mueller’s entire investigation.

35 replies
  1. madwand says:

    I guess that is one way to keep getting a paycheck. Perhaps DOJ could insist on a budget and some sort of results. If nothing was forthcoming, then terminate it as a waste of money.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      If we can terminate something for being a waste of money, does that mean we terminate the GOP?

      Just asking, mind you, for a friend…

      • madwand says:

        I read somewhere where Hawley had received over $900 grand and Taylor Greene over 400 grand since January 6. So IMHO it’s really hard to fix stupid and the money keeps flowing, they are convinced their lives depend on it.

        • TooLoose LeTruck says:

          Not the least bit surprised to hear that…

          And as long as the easy money keeps flowing, these repulsive frauds are going to keep it banging that drum…

          You KNOW they’re already looking at 2024 and will do whatever they can to make Biden look like an abject failure, no matter what he does or how well it works…

          We have a serious, serious problem on our hands at this point…

  2. Rugger9 says:

    I think it is also significant that there haven’t been any teases leaked into the RWNM for imminent scandals to drop. It proves there is no “there” there for the Biden-related conspiracy theories, or for that matter the claim that the Mueller investigation was biased in favor of the “Libruls”. Such strategic gaslighting leaks were a constant feature of AG Barr’s DOJ, but we don’t have it this time around. Merrick Garland hasn’t been in office a week yet so it’s not likely he’s stopped Durham from saying something before now.

    Where is the “dog barking in the night”?

  3. Frank Anon says:

    So true on the lack of buzz on anything Durham. In the run up to Nov 3 my social media accounts were rife with friends who supported Trump claiming today, Monday, whenever was the day Durham was dropping the hammer, usually speculating on which Democrat they were sure was going to be indicted. Wash, rinse, repeat. Now they’ve forgotten Durham exists, apparently. Meanwhile, Nora Dannehy has become the chief lawyer for the CT (Democratic) governor and nobody’s claimed conspiracy or anything for that matter. Durham’s over, if just for the final report

  4. zach broughe says:

    ~First time poster, Long time reader~

    Ray Mc Govern and Consortiumnews.com were introduced to me in 2001 reading BartCop’s blog, Here are two articles Mc Govern wrote; the first from Consortium News 7-31-2019.and the second from from Monthly Review 7-4-2020.

    I found it “interesting” to note how much faith and hope Ray had for Ratcliffe and Durham’s “investigations”.


    “Shortly before President Donald Trump announced he had nominated Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence, Ratcliffe made it clear he intends to hit the deck running on the “crimes” behind Russiagate.”
    “With the malleable nonentity Coats as DNI, and with top CIA officials trying to keep former CIA Director John Brennan out of jail (and shield their own derrieres), Barr has — until now — lacked a strong “deputy sheriff” with the requisite prosecutorial skills and courage to investigate the intelligence community to find out where the bodies are buried in Washington. As soon as Ratcliffe is confirmed, Barr should have what he needs to close that gap and tackle full bore the intelligence part of the Deep State’s role in Russiagate.”


    “Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike admitting that there is no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked–by Russia or anyone else.
    How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available since May 7? The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered “Intelligence Community” Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That “assessment” done by “hand-picked analysts” from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence agencies of the “intelligence community”) reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S. Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate’s origins.

    If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us.Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for them last night–namely, the “intelligence” on the “bounties” was not deemed good enough to present to the president.

    (As a preparer and briefer of The President’s Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW Bush, I can attest to the fact that–based on what has been revealed so far–the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)”

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Zach broughe, I got the trolling part. But only because I put in extra effort that your readers shouldn’t have to–and from the sound of their comments, the other ones did not. You made it way too easy to mistake most of your post for your own words and views, when in fact (I hope) you were quoting Ray McGovern. Next time, follow the most basic rules, and you might get the conversation you want.

          • zach broughe says:

            Thanks GD, glad you picked up on the “troll” which is actually a “drag”. I know I’m not an expert
            at quotes but I added them to every passage I cut and pasted. I find it difficult that this didn’t make
            my point clear, and I quote:
            “I found it “interesting” to note how much faith and hope Ray had for Ratcliffe and Durham’s “investigations”.

            I rarely post on message boards etc after getting too deep into a San Diego Charger
            message board with a guy called Aces Casino back in 1997. Thanks again!

            • bmaz says:

              Hi. This is not a “message board”, nor a “San Diego Charger” forum. Maybe think about why the immediate thoughts by near everybody about your content was that you were trolling, and I am not talking about trolling Durham and McGovern, but about you trolling us.

              • Zach broughe says:

                I seem to recall weekly discussions about football for years bmaz. Your reputation for grilling newbies is legendary and something I admire about you. I check you out on Twitter regularly. Hard to believe you guys don’t remember Bartcop but no way a fan of his( RIP MY FRIEND) but any one reading him from his inception as I did would be trolling this site. Pretty sure Jane Hampsher knew him well. Also MWO. But no worries, I don’t need to post to enjoyMarcy’s unparalleled analysis.

                • subtropolis says:

                  You’ve been blooded by bmaz. Welcome to the fold. :-)

                  fwiw, I understood that you were dragging McGovern. I used to respect him, back during the Cheney administration. I’d not seen anything of his for years until just a couple of weeks ago when I learned that he’d gone down the “deep state” rabbit hole. It’s bizarre to think that he’s now essentially in the same boat as that dangerous fuckwit Michael Schuer. (sp?) But then, I used to think that Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi were journalists worth paying attention to.

                  • zach broughe says:

                    Thanks Subtropolis, glad you caught my drift. Like you, I followed RM back in the Bush era before he left the reservation. Rick Perry was doing good work back then as well. Not sure what brought about the change, maybe Bmaz can enlighten us. Consortium News has been a great disappointment for some time. For a while it was all Julian Assange “fiddling” while the trump klan burned down the place. As you note, they have a lot of company!

                    • bmaz says:

                      First off, I was too harsh on you initially, but McGovern and Consortium make me cringe when I see their names pop up anymore, so apologies.

                      As to “what happened”? Heck if I know. Maybe we all engaged in confirmation bias back then, but I personally think it is much more than just that. Can’t discern their motivations, but they went well over the edge several years ago.

              • zach broughe says:

                No reply button for your last comment but no need for an apology Bmaz. My post was clumsy at best(as I said, I RARELY comment, anywhere). Not sure if you pick up KOOP
                from Austin in your neck of the woods but a HS classmate of mine, Pedro Gatos has a show called “Bringing Darkness into Light”. He has followed Ray and company “over the edge” as well. He did great work during the Iran Contra era but he is unlistenable now.
                My father was a submarine Captain during the Cuban Missile Crisis so I have no patience for Russian loving traitors. Peace Out

    • ThoughtMail says:

      Zack, I had to read it carefully to discern what it was that you were trying to express, but failed. On the one hand, you seemed to be sarcastically quoting them. On the other, owing to the length of the quotes, you seemed to be endorsing them (giving them undeserved oxygen).

      Would you like to express an opinion that’s not someone else’s, with a little more clarity? I still don’t know what you had hoped to accomplish here.

    • njbill says:

      There’s no evidence the DNC emails were hacked? How about the fact that the emails were released by WikiLeaks? Or do you think the DNC voluntarily provided their emails to WikiLeaks?

  5. PeterS says:

    Was there a suggestion somewhere that Durham could be “repurposed”, for example to look at how the DoJ “inadvertently” altered a document it filed in court on the Michael Flynn case? Perhaps I’m imagining that and I certainly have no insight into how feasible it would be.

  6. misteranderson says:

    Does anyone know the status of the Egypt bribery investigation? Is it permanently gone & successfully squelched? Can it be revived? By the way, why haven’t we heard more about the Chinese depositing $17 mil in an account for Trump?

    • subtropolis says:

      This article, from last October, is the last I saw anything about it. It’s a good broad explanation of what is publicly known about the case.


      After years of work, the investigation was quietly closed last summer, though it’s not clear why. Certainly, the difficulties of accessing Trump’s financial records played a big part. Was the evidence just not there? Or, were there certain … sensitivities that kept prosecutors from moving forward. These two sentences from the article strongly suggest to me that there was some spookery at the heart of it.

      “Federal law enforcement officials suspected, in part because of intelligence information, that there was money moving through the Egyptian bank that could connect to Trump’s campaign donation, according to the sources. … Mueller’s team repeatedly asked witnesses questions about Trump foreign policy campaign adviser Walid Phares and his ties to Egypt, after intelligence pointed them toward him.“

      Was this Intelligence connection tying the hands of investigators? It wouldn’t be the first time that an investigation was quietly dropped in favour of keeping _other_ things quiet.

      Of course, there’s also William Barr to consider.

  7. bmaz says:

    And let me reiterate, I still think Clinesmith was defensible to the only charge of Bull Durham.

  8. Leoghann says:

    Kenneth Starr set the bar pretty high, for interminable, fruitless investigations. Durham has a long way to go.

  9. yogarhythms says:

    “Today marks the 675th day of the Durham investigation into the origins and conduct of the investigation that became the Mueller investigation.”
    A. Sydney P will over turn 11/3/2020
    B. Stone will over turn 11/3/2020
    C. Durham over turns report 11/5/24

  10. Krisy Gosney says:

    This Durham investigation is a slap in the face to people who have to work hard just to pay living expenses. Who do I need to know who’ll pass my budget along for payment too?

  11. graham firchlis says:

    No investigatory results from Durham, and no accounting for wasted taxpayer dollars? Highly suspicious. Only one course can fairly sort this out.

    AG Merrick Garland must immediately appoint a new Special Counsel to investigate Special Counsel John Durham’s special investigation of Special Counsel Robert Muller’s special investigation.

    That would be special.

  12. Zinsky says:

    It will be interesting to see how much Russian disinformation, supplied by Derkach, Kilimnik, et al., finds its way into Durham’s final report. The latest DNI report makes it clear that Giuliani, Ron Johnson, and Devin Nunes were used by Russia to spread disinformation. Will Durham’s report be laden with bullshit from the same sources? We will see.

  13. Zach Broughe says:

    Sure, what brought Ray Mc Govern to the point that he was rooting for Trump toadies? He was so sure John Rat life was going to expose Obama, but the guy lasted a week in the job. Durham should have been so fortunate. Looking for was free to seeing how Consortium News process the drill drip of info on Russian meddling.

Comments are closed.