Eight Things Not Mentioned in the Durham Report

There are a whole lot of gaping holes in the Durham Report (my Twitter thread on the report is here; here’s a ThreadReader version). Here are eight of the most important things that Durham chose to leave out of his report on his four-year investigation.

1. All mention of the Italian referral on Trump. In January, NYT reported on the many problems with the Durham investigation, none of which shows up in his report. Most importantly, NYT reported that on a trip to Italy, the Italians gave Bill Barr and Durham a tip about crimes Trump may have committed.

On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe, according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.

Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore. But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.

Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.

By regulation, there should be some investigative result from this investigation in Durham’s report. It’s not in there.

2. All mention of the conspiracy theories Durham and Barr chased in Europe. The first year or so of the Durham investigation, Bill and John spend traipsing around the world chasing the conspiracy theories George Papadopoulos had floated in a 2018 House Oversight appearance. Barr has confessed they found nothing. But Durham doesn’t do that — or even mention the conspiracy theories — in his report. That’s important for a number of reasons: because Durham asserts that Congress should have no say in criminal investigations even though they dictated the initial direction of his own, because (as I’ll show) Durham badly whitewashes everything having to do with Papadopoulos, and because Durham also doesn’t mention the investigative steps he failed to take while running off to Italy to get Joseph Mifsud’s blackberries.

3. Durham’s own investigative failures. I’ve written at length about how Durham’s own investigative failures make anything Crossfire Hurricane did look tame by comparison. He failed to get relevant information from DOJ IG or ask Jim Baker to check his iCloud for what happened to be texts proving Michael Sussmann’s defense until after he indicted Sussmann. He never interviewed Papadopoulos, indicted Danchenko relying on what Sergei Millian said on Twitter, and then failed to obtain the messaging app evidence he would need to disprove a call between Millian and Danchenko. Durham focuses, at length, on steps he speculated the FBI didn’t take on the Carter Page FISC, but he had more egregious failures to pursue what turned out to be exculpatory information.

4. The Trump Tower Moscow deal. In a footnote, Durham concedes there are things that the FBI later found that corroborated ties between Trump and Russia that weren’t known when the investigation was opened. The only example he provides, however, is the June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in New York.

There were also at least some activities involving the Trump campaign and Russians that did not become public, and were not known to the FBI, until much later. For example, on June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the campaign met briefly with a private Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and others at the Trump Tower. Mueller Report at 110, 117. Veselnitskaya “had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout this period oftime.” Id. at 110. The initial email to Donald Trump Jr. proposing the meeting said that the Crown prosecutor of Russia was offering to provide the campaign with documents and information that would incriminate Clinton. Id. The meeting at the Trump Tower only became public over a year later. Id. at 121.

Durham leaves out many others — like Manafort sharing campaign strategy and Trump having Manafort order Roger Stone to reach out to WikiLeaks. But because Durham focuses closely on Dmitry Peskov’s role in the Steele dossier and a brief nod he makes towards Russian disinformation in it, Durham’s silence about Michael Cohen’s January 2016 conversation with Dmitry Peskov’s office asking for help on a Trump Tower Moscow deal, using sanctioned banks and a former GRU officer as broker, is the most damning. Olga Galkina and Charles Dolan’s ties to Peskov — an interminable focus of this report — are important especially because Peskov was the one person in Russian who undeniably knew that Cohen had made a secret call to Russia during the campaign that both he and Trump were lying to cover up. Yet Durham simply ignores that critical context.

5. Konstantin Kilimnik’s name. Not only did Durham fail to mention most of the most damning things that Trump and his flunkies did, he also failed to mention some of the key people they did them with. None is more important than Konstantin Kilimnik, with whom Paul Manafort conspired to cover up his past pro-Russian Ukraine lobbying, to whom Manafort provided campaign strategy at a meeting where they also discussed millions in debt relief for Manafort, and about which meeting Amy Berman Jackson found Manafort had lied to prosecutors. Kilimnik is important for two reasons. First, Durham nods to the potential role of “Oligarch 1,” whom he doesn’t reveal was Oleg Deripaska, in disinformation in the dossier. He also confirms that Christopher Steele was working for Deripaska earlier in 2016 (in which discussion Durham does name the now-sanctioned Oligarch). But Durham never mentions that Manafort had direct ties to Deripaska through Kilimnik. And Durham repeatedly claims that, because the Intelligence Community had no record of ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, it’s proof the FBI shouldn’t have opened the investigation. Of course, the IC has since concluded that Kilimnik shared that campaign information from Manafort with Russian spooks and that he is himself a spook. Thus, the IC’s failures to identify Kilimnik’s intelligence ties (and those of other people more loosely tied to Russia and Trump) is not a reflection, at all, of the merit of the investigation, but instead a mark of the IC’s own failures in advance of the operation.

6. Description of Guccifer 2.0’s initial releases. Unlike Kilimnik, Durham at least mentions Guccifer 2.0, the persona GRU officers created as a cut-out through whom to release some of the files they stole. But Durham only mentions the persona in a discussion of what he calls a Clinton Plan to impose a political cost on Trump for cozying up to Russia.

Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date [Source revealing information redacted]: [] An exchange … discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. According to open sources, Guccifer 2.0 is an individual or group of hackers whom US officials believe is tied to Russian intelligence services. Also, per open sources, Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) this year.

There’s much that is downright noxious about Durham’s treatment of his so-called Clinton Plan. But he fails to distinguish the treatment of whatever report this intelligence made of Guccifer 2.0 and the allegation about Hillary, including when discussing its briefing and dissemination. More problematic still, Durham claims that all this only happened in late July 2016, even though the Democrats identified the hack and its attribution, Guccifer 2.0 started releasing stolen files, and (per Rick Gates, at least) Roger Stone entered discussions with the persona about advance releases in mid-June. Durham’s silence (aside from this quotation) about Guccifer 2.0 not only serves his criminalization of Hillary’s response to being victimized by a nation-state attack, but it permits him to craft a completely false timeline on which his Clinton Plan conspiracy theory depends.

7. The biased FBI Agent running the Clinton Foundation informant. Durham engages in a good deal of false comparisons between how Hillary was treated and how Trump was. Most fall apart. For example, he points to a defensive briefing Hillary got in a different foreign influence investigation to claim that Trump should have gotten a defensive briefing in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. But his own report shows she didn’t get that briefing until around ten months into the investigation; less than six months into the Russia investigation, Trump got a briefing, about Mike Flynn. Durham’s comparisons of the conduct of the Clinton Foundation investigation and Crossfire Hurricane are even more strained, since he engages in no reflection of how shoddy Clinton Cash was, which (unlike the Steele dossier here) was part of that predication. Nor does he contemplate the rampant leaking, during the campaign, about that investigation. Most dishonest, however, is Durham’s silence about the single informant run during 2016 known to be handled by biased agents, one targeting Clinton Foundation described in the Carter Page IG Report.

We reviewed the text and instant messages sent and received by the Handling Agent, the co-case Handling Agent, and the SSA for this CHS, which reflect their support for Trump in the 2016 elections. On November 9, the day after the election, the SSA contacted another FBI employee via an instant messaging program to discuss some recent CHS reporting regarding the Clinton Foundation and offered that “if you hear talk of a special prosecutor .. .I will volunteer to work [on] the Clinton Foundation.” The SSA’s November 9, 2016 instant messages also stated that he “was so elated with the election” and compared the election coverage to “watching a Superbowl comeback.” The SSA explained this comment to the OIG by saying that he “fully expected Hillary Clinton to walk away with the election. But as the returns [came] in … it was just energizing to me to see …. [because] I didn’t want a criminal to be in the White House.”

On November 9, 2016, the Handling Agent and co-case Handling Agent for this CHS also discussed the results of the election in an instant message exchange that reads:

Handling Agent: “Trump!”

Co-Case Handling Agent: “Hahaha. Shit just got real.”

Handling Agent: “Yes it did.”

Co-Case Handling Agent: “I saw a lot of scared MFers on … [my way to work] this morning. Start looking for new jobs fellas. Haha.”

Handling Agent: “LOL”

Co-Case Handling Agent: “Come January I’m going to just get a big bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch.”

Handling Agent: “That’s hilarious!” [my emphasis]

This exchange is similar to the texts that Durham uses to implicate Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, or Kevin Clinesmith. But in this case, this agent was directly handling an informant targeting the actual candidate during the election.

8. The response to Mike Flynn’s lies about Sergey Kislyak. In retrospect, another significant thing missing from this report is the investigation into how, in early 2017, the FBI responded to Mike Flynn’s lies about speaking with Sergey Kislyak. We know that Durham did investigate this. Much of what he investigated was handed to Jeffrey Jensen to launder into the effort to overturn the Flynn prosecution. But Durham doesn’t even whitewash the ultimate charges against Flynn, as he does, to hilarious effect, with George Papadopoulos. There’s nothing more than a passing reference to discomfort from investigators that could pertain to this investigative effort. I’m not sure what to make of its absence. It’s possible it was too closely related to the blow-up with Nora Dannehy. Possibly, the interim report the team drafted without her knowledge focused on Flynn and she debunked it, meaning there’s a prosecutorial judgment somewhere that undermines the claims Barr and others made. Possibly, the games Barr played after that — including the release of a Bill Barnett 302 that conflicted in key ways with the public record — have made those claims untenable. Whatever the reason, its absence in this report is notable.

There’s a lot more that’s missing from this report. But if Durham were to fill just a few of these critical gaps, the whole thing would crumble.

Update: Added an eighth missing item, the Mike Flynn prong of the investigation. Subsequently fixed Jensen’s first name.

57 replies
  1. tryggth says:

    Surprised he didn’t interview Trump and clear all these things up.

    Also, why didn’t he dig into the unfair prosecution of Concord Management and Consulting?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  2. Inwoods says:

    > But because Durham focuses closely on Dmitry Peskov’s role in the Steele dossier and a brief nod he makes towards Russian disinformation in it, Durham’s silence Michael Cohen’s January 2016 conversation with Dmitry Peskov’s office asking for help on a Trump Tower Moscow deal, using sanctioned banks and a former GRU officer as broker, is the most damning.

    This is a very long sentence and I can’t quite parse it. Maybe “silence **on** Michael”?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  3. Scott Rose says:

    Interesting, your mention of Durham whitewashing everything having to do with Papadopoulos, particularly given Trump’s incriminating conduct towards Papadopoulos.

    First, Trump was frequently praising Papadopoulos has a highly skilled member of his campaign.

    Immediately after Papadopoulos got in legal trouble, though, Trump said he was a “low level volunteer” and “a liar.”

    Trump’s evident goal in calling Papadopoulos a liar was to discredit the information Papadopoulos had given to Alexander Downer, about Russia having possession of emails stolen from Clinton, as well as an intention to help the Trump campaign with those stolen goods.

    It really has to be emphasized that an ethical American candidate, at that juncture, if he really knew nothing about Russia having emails stolen from another American, would have announced his campaign’s full cooperation with U.S. law enforcement to get to the bottom of the matter.

    Trump’s motives in minimizing Papadopoulos’s role in his campaign and in smearing him as “a liar” were transparently corrupt. Later, Papadopoulos concocted a contradictory story that served Trump’s corrupt purposes, and then suddenly, in Trump’s expressed view, Papadopoulos wasn’t a liar any more.

    The arc of Trump’s conduct towards Papadopoulos is a model of how American campaigns should not behave when a hostile foreign adversary like Putin is attacking American elections.

  4. Savage Librarian says:

    “There’s a lot more that’s missing from this report. But if Durham were to fill just a few of these critical gaps, the whole thing would crumble.”


    “Lorraine Bowen: The Crumble Song”

  5. N.E. Brigand says:

    The cover letter accompanying Durham’s report mentions a classified appendix. Could the Italian-inspired criminal investigation relating to Donald Trump be covered in that section?

    • emptywheel says:

      I think there are 3 things in there:
      1) The Carter Page FISA apps (which DOJ is now treating as classified)
      2) Details of a CI investigation into Hillary they’re drawing a false equivalence to
      3) More details on the conspiracy theory–probably about how the Dutch found it and the allegations against George Soros

  6. klynn says:

    IANAL – Is this going to impact the Strzok lawsuit in any way? Portions read like a bad CYA for Trump.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      klynn, Durham’s entire purpose was to confabulate the ultimate CYA for Trump. As it happens Trump showed too much of what is too huuuge an ass. Durham’s report supplies less than a thong’s coverage.

      As for the golden-showers-related codpiece, Trump hardly needs that anymore.

      • klynn says:

        There are misrepresentations in the report that might get regurgitated for the Strzok lawsuit. I wonder if that was of Durham’s design? IANAL.

  7. StevenL says:

    My favorite part is the excerpt in one of Marcy’s later tweets (4:55 pm CT) in which Durham discusses—with utter lack of self-awareness—the dangers of confirmation bias.

    That kinda encapsulates the whole investigation right there.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  8. Derek_27APR2023_1841h says:

    Masterful work per usual. This is why I follow. Thank you.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short and/or common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  9. David F. Snyder says:

    Now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Durham report. And how many (ass)holes it took to produce it.

  10. Robot17 says:

    I dunno. For me the whole thing was justified after “Russia, if you’re listening…”

  11. Peterr says:

    From Durham in a blockquote above: “For example, on June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the campaign met briefly with a private Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and others at the Trump Tower.”

    Yes, let’s just downplay this *brief* little get-together with a *private* Russian lawyer.

    Let’s just check the reference Durham provides to the Muller Report, shall we? Surely Durham would never dream of misrepresenting what that report says, right?

    Per the Muller report (p. 117), the meeting lasted “about 20 minutes.” To me, that’s more than a “brief” meeting, especially when I think of the schedules of high level people (in this case, campaign people like Manafort, Kushner, Don Jr. etc.). To me, a brief meeting is 5-10 minutes. It wasn’t an afternoon-long negotiation, but it was more than just “hi – let’s chat – OK, bye”. But hey, reasonable folks can disagree on how long a “brief” meeting is, right?

    Which is exactly what Durham wants. He doesn’t quote Mueller specifically saying it was 20 minutes long, but instead chooses a term of indeterminate meaning that at the same time downplays the importance of the gathering. “Nothing to see here. It was a brief meeting. Move along, move along . . .”

    But the word “private” is Durham’s whopper here. This is what Mueller had to say about the “private” lawyer (pp. 111-113):

    On June 3, 2016, Emin Agalarov called Goldstone, Emin’s then-publicist.669 Goldstone is a music and events promoter who represented Emin Agalarov from approximately late 2012 until late 2016.670 While representing Emin Agalarov, Goldstone facilitated the ongoing contact between the Trumps and the Agalarovs–including an invitation that Trump sent to Putin to attend the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow.671 [two lines redacted for Grand Jury information] 672 Goldstone understood [half a line redacted for GJ info] a Russian political connection, and Emin Agalarov indicated that the attorney was a prosecutor. 673 Goldstone recalled that the information that might interest the Trumps involved Hillary Clinton [two-thirds of a line redacted for GJ info] 674 [two lines redacted for GJ info] 675

    The [one-third of a line redacted for GJ info] mentioned by Emin Agalarov was Natalia Veselnitskaya. 676 From approximately 1998 until 2001, Veselnitskaya worked as a prosecutor for the Central Administrative District of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office,677 and she continued to perform government-related work and maintain ties to the Russian government following her departure.678 She lobbied and testified about the Magnitsky Act, which imposed financial sanctions and travel restrictions on Russian officials and which was named for a Russian tax specialist who exposed a fraud and later died in a Russian prison. 679 Putin called the statute “a purely political, unfriendly act,” and Russia responded by barring a list of current and former U.S. officials from entering Russia and by halting the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens.680 Veselnitskaya performed legal work for Denis Katsyv,681 the son of Russian businessman Peter Katsyv, and for his company Prevezon Holdings Ltd., which was a defendant in a civil-forfeiture action alleging the laundering of proceeds from the fraud exposed by Magnitsky.682 She also appears to have been involved in an April 2016 approach to a U.S. congressional delegation in Moscow offering “confidential information” from “the Prosecutor General of Russia” about “interactions between certain political forces in our two countries.”683

    Doesn’t sound terribly “private” to me. But let’s look at the footnotes, because you know there’s always good stuff in the footnotes.

    Oh my. Footnote 676 is rather interesting . . .

    676 In December 2018, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment charging Veselnitskaya with obstructing the Prevezon litigation discussed in the text above. See Indictment, United States v. Natalia Vladimirovna Veselnitskaya, No. 18-cr-904 (S.D.N.Y.). The indictment alleges, among other things, that Veselnitskaya lied to the district court about her relationship to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and her involvement in responding to a U.S. document request sent to the Russian government.

    That doesn’t sound much like a “private” lawyer to me.

    Durham seems to have the same problem describing what is in the Muller Report – the same problem William Barr had.

    • BobBobCon says:

      Collapsing Manafort’s name into “senior representatives” to avoid naming him is such a tell about Durham’s obvious bad faith.

      It’s Leave It To Beaver level evasion where Wally tries to hide who exactly he’s going to meet in the hopes that his parents wouldn’t sniff out what he was up to.

      • Rostov says:

        Coming down a little hard on the Wally aren’t you?

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • joel fisher says:

      All strong comments about the “brief” meeting. But, don’t I remember tfg obstructing the investigation into the brief meeting? And don’t I remember the Biden Justice Department doing nothing about it? And haven’t I just written myself into a rage again?

      • Amicus12 says:

        If I recall correctly, the Trump attendees tried to downplay the significance of the event as Veselnitskaya talking about “orphans.” This is rather obviously a coded reference to Magnitsky Act sanctions and Russia’s response. In other words, she was there seeking a deal. Why else would she be there?

  12. Bobster33 says:

    Sam Seder was saying that Merrick Garland should have pulled a Bill Bar. Merrick could have written a two page summary of Durham’s report, released Merrick’s version and then release Durham’s report two weeks later, on a Friday afternoon.

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Restoring faith in our justice system is partially dependent upon AG Garland NOT pulling a “Bill Bar (sic)”.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Seder’s comment is foolish and destructive, seemingly in an attempt to sound knowledgeable about something he knows bupkis about.

      • Bobster33 says:

        So Merrick releasing a report that says Durham’s efforts resulted in nothing is destructive?

        • Clare Kelly says:

          “… Durham’s efforts resulted in nothing…”

          Reading the report itself using critical thinking skills, in combination with Dr Wheeler’s analysis, confirms the above…and more.

          AG Garland is bringing dignity, diligence, and objectivity back to the DOJ, imho.

          The “report” speaks for itself.

        • Bobster33 says:

          I’ll refer you to my comment below for EOH. The “report” speaks for itself is a completely asinine comment. Reports don’t speak. The speaking will be done by the talking heads and the media.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Now you’re being obtuse. My comment was about Seder’s snark, assuming that’s what it was. Durham released a report, as he was required to do. That it is epically shitty is also on him, not Garland.

        • Bobster33 says:

          And You’e being politically naive. In this age where politics trumps justice, Garland should have released his summary saying Durham’s report is bullshit. And then two weeks later, Garland should have released Durham’s report. That process would have taken the wind out of the sails of any mainstream news report. Fox of course would have called it a cover up, but who cares.

          As for Durham being epically shitty, Sam’s suggestion is a political way to counter this.

  13. Tullalove says:

    I read here often, but I don’t comment much, because y’all are far smarter on legal intricacies (and F1 racing, and golf club shenanigans, and Latour). But as someone who cherishes close reading, it seems to me this post, and EW’s twitter thread, demonstrate how important it is to read the documents for what they say, and what they don’t say.

    I’m not sure how that work reaches a broader audience, but I’m sure going to think about how I can help it to do so. It’s a crucial way forward. (And, yes, of course I will continue to contribute $, but also try to make this work a broader part of the conversation, even if just in my little neighborhood).

  14. William Allen Simpson (DayDreamer) says:

    my Twitter thread on the report….

    I rarely read Twitter links. Wouldn’t it be better to repackage the tweets as a post? Please!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Donald Trump’s success in bullying his dysfunctional siblings into doing his own homework aside, we usually take pride in doing our own homework. Marcy already gave you a site; all you need do is click and read.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Agree. I won’t go to twitler’s space (sorry, bmaz) unless absolutely necessary. Eventually perhaps EW et. al. can move to another platform.

      Perhaps someone could do a thread unroll periodically and post that here? It’ll miss a lot of the nonsense that follows any tweet but that’s a feature, not a bug.

  15. JonathanW says:

    Dr Wheeler, your tweet thread on the Durham report has made it to the readership of Townhall dot com! I’ve always (very sarcastically) wondered if one of the editors there, Matt Vespa, was a secret liberal infiltrator, as he seems to often accidentally introduce information that isn’t “supposed” to be exposed in the RW bubble, and then will just wrap up an article with a “see how bad these liberals are” statement to explain why he’s exposing his readers to liberal arguments. He did this a lot during the classified documents/Mar-a-Lago case last autumn.

    This was the form of one of his articles on the Durham report, where he screen-capped a Peter Stzork tweet response to your tweet thread, all under the guise of claiming that Stzork was “triggered” by the Durham report. But a side effect is that some non-0 percentage of Townhall readers will probably end up on your tweet thread, and maybe they’ll learn something. Or not, maybe I’m too hopeful.

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Thanks for the link!

      MW calls Durham stupid. I’m not sure that’s the real source of his many “errors” and omissions. Somehow the stubbornness with which these actors persist in the disinformation campaign to prevent clarity on how Russia helped Trump reminds me of Russia’s persistence in using failed tactics in Ukraine, especially the attacks on Bakhmut. Hmmm.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Thanks, harpie. I just made a comment above before reading your post.

      I’ll bet that someone (me?) could semi-automate creating thread unrolls from MW’s (and other) threads and post links here.

    • SomeGuyInMaine says:

      Saw it in Charlie Savage’s recent analysis/opinion piece.

      Also rep Dan Goldman is highlighting it in his recent comments (e.g on the Reid Out).

      Good to see.

  16. Ruthie says:

    With regard to item 1, you mention that a report should have been issued. Given its exclusion, could Congress compel DOJ to fill in the gap and either provide a report or testify in a hearing? Relatedly, is there any chance SC Smith will circle back to pull on that thread? Presumably DOJ knows the results of any such investigation, regardless of whether it’s been included in Durham’s report.

    • emptywheel says:

      Smith will not. Barr surely wrote a solid declination, like he did for all of Trump’s crimes, so it can’t be restored.

      It has been suggested to me that everything that was closed before the Special Counsel designation in October 2020 would not need to be in here.

      • Ruthie2the says:

        Mods: sorry I forgot my updated username above.

        I’m not surprised, really, that it’s a dead end at DOJ, but I would think Senate Democrats might be interested in finding out more. Then again, I suppose it’s just another potential crime to add to the long, long list. That, and they’re hoping SC Smith takes care of the problem for them.

        • bmaz says:

          Trust me, nobody at DOJ is expecting Jack Smith to do jack shit about Durham. People commenting on this blog seriously need to get a grip on reality.

        • Ruthie2the says:

          I actually agree, and meant to refer to the SC’s remit as per AG Garland – stolen documents, J6, etc. Didn’t mean to poke the bear.

  17. DVL_17MAY2023_1251h says:

    How does the law work with respect to oversight of special counsels or prosecutors? It seems like at some point willful omission of information, failure to charge your political allies, or negligent handling of your political opponents, could add up to a criminal act. Certainly if you imagined a corrupt local official conspiring with a local prosecutor who would be lenient on their own crimes, you would imagine there would be an illegal act with at least a few historical convictions.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  18. Rugger_9 says:

    Dan Crenshaw of TX was bloviating about unspecified legislation to ‘criminalize’ what Durham ‘found’ as if finding criminality wasn’t the point of the four years of digging. Two trials and no convictions. Careful what you wish for, Dan, since that brush will tar Defendant-1 and his clan long before HRC or Biden. It would be interesting to see how Crenshaw enshrines IOKIYAR into the law.

  19. WinningerR says:

    Question for Dr. Wheeler: Has anyone produced a plausible explanation of exactly what was going on with with those Trump and AlfaBank servers? Most of the press has concluded that the AlfaBank affair is an example of “overzealous reporting,” but I can’t find anything that satisfactorily explains the observed anomalies, just a few theories that quickly collapsed under scrutiny. I know Durham asserted that FBI technical experts dismissed concerns about the servers, but he offers no details. The researchers who noticed the anomalous traffic are also experts and their reputations seem solid. Am I missing something (quite possible)? Thanks for your good work.

  20. klynn says:

    After a second read of the report, EW’s Twitter thread and related blog posts, it appears that Durham’s efforts to: whitewash, use firehose of falsehoods, plant denials and avoid use of factual information on the record in order to create twisted narratives; really creates a roadmap of the RU path behind Trump.

  21. Rock Knutne says:

    Great stuff!

    Way better than SNL in the 80’s and Seinfeld in the 90’s.

    Way better. 😂😝🤣

Comments are closed.