Republicans Demanded Independence for John Durham and Got Robert Hur and Jack Smith in the Bargain

Even before Trump’s Espionage Act indictment was made public, Trump was attempting to politicize his stolen documents prosecution by demanding — via a Truth Social post— a meeting with Merrick Garland, who is not overseeing the case. Virtually every journalist fell for Trump’s bait, reporting the demand without noting that Jack Smith is the prosecutor overseeing the investigation into Trump, not Merrick Garland.

Garland rightly refused the meeting.

Since then, paid propagandists have been chanting out “Joe Biden Merrick Garland Joe Biden Merrick Garland” talking points like wind-up toys, because repetition is how you get low-information Trump supporters and members of Congress to believe false claims.

This strand of propaganda has worked. The other day, WSJ’s Sadie Gurman, after reviewing how assiduously Merrick Garland remained out of the process, stated as fact that this is a political prosecution.

When a grand jury returned the first-ever federal indictment of a former president last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland made a point of suggesting he was nowhere near the team handling the case.

He strolled into Justice Department headquarters in downtown Washington with his deputy late Thursday afternoon amid intense speculation about charges against Donald Trump and told a Wall Street Journal reporter he had been out getting a Covid vaccine.


In keeping with that philosophy, Garland kept details of the indictment and its timing secret from Biden, who said Friday, “I have not spoken to him at all, and I am not going to speak with him.”

The attorney general also declined to meet with Trump’s lawyers, who requested a sit-down in the days leading up to the indictment, leaving the gathering instead to Smith and other Justice Department officials.


Yet Garland now presides over what may be the highest-profile political prosecution ever, which is certain to be a prominent factor in the 2024 election. [my emphasis]

Gurman also suggested that Garland somehow engaged in politics by letting Jack Smith unseal the indictment that was sealed to protect security, not to let Trump sow violence in a vacuum.

But Garland didn’t object to prosecutors asking a court to unseal the indictment on Friday, well before Trump’s Tuesday arraignment when it would normally be made public, a person familiar with the matter said.

Finally, Gurman immediately — and, possibly, falsely — suggested that Garland “faces a call” on whether DOJ should charge Hunter Biden.

Adding to the political overtones, Garland also faces a call on whether the Justice Department should file charges against Biden’s son, Hunter, who is under investigation related to his taxes and whether he made a false statement in connection with a gun purchase. Hunter Biden has said he acted legally and appropriately.

Garland only faces a call if he has to approve an indictment. If David Weiss chooses not to prosecute, Garland is not going to override the Trump-appointed US Attorney who has been retained to make this decision himself.

Since yesterday’s arraignment, the false claim that Joe Biden and Merrick Garland have pursued the prosecution of Biden’s rival has gotten crazier still, especially on Murdoch properties other than the one where Gurman invented a political prosecution where there is none. As Trump wailed about his plight at his club yesterday, for example, Fox’s chyron accused Biden of being a “wannabe dictator” because a process entirely insulated from Biden resulted in Trump’s arrest. (Natasha Korecki posted this screen cap.)

There’s something especially noxious about the degree to which actual journalists like Gurman are parroting this line (Jamison Fraser notes a similar example in polling coverage).

Donald Trump is being treated no differently than Biden himself, to say nothing of the targets of John Durham’s abusive four year investigation.

Consider how absurd it is that Trump, lashing out, promised to appoint “a real special ‘prosecutor'” to go after Biden and “the entire Biden crime family.”

The Biden Administration already did that, Bucko!!! It currently has two Trump appointed prosecutors, David Weiss and Robert Hur, conducting investigations into Biden’s son and Biden himself. You’re so inadequate you can’t even out-prosecute Biden than Biden himself is already doing!

Yet, in response to this tweet, almost no journalists noted that Joe Biden’s Administration already did that — retain or appoint two separate Trump-appointed prosecutors to investigate Biden himself.

And that’s a hint of what is affirmatively missing from the coverage of real journalists like Gurman.

It’s that Republicans, and Trump himself, have demanded what they’ve gotten with Merrick Garland’s distance from Jack Smith’s prosecution. Republicans, and Trump himself, have repeatedly demanded that Garland stay out of Weiss’ investigation. They even wailed that Biden was being treated specially after the discovery of classified documents at the Penn Biden Center, until it became clear a preliminary Special Counsel had been appointed within days, in Biden’s case, not months.

Most importantly, none of these Republicans wailing about Garland’s distance from the Jack Smith investigations (wailing because it demonstrates their claims that this is a political prosecution to be obvious bullshit) complained at all after John Durham used the independence Garland afforded him to engage in one after another instance of shocking prosecutorial abuse.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that Durham investigated for four years even though no crime predicated his investigation (a far worse abuse than Durham’s complaint that Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full rather than Preliminary investigation).

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that Durham threatened witnesses and lawyers (and lawyers complained to Merrick Garland in real time; they didn’t wait until a target letter went out to try to excuse their own counterproductive legal advice).

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that in both trials, first his lead prosecutor and then Durham himself, were caught scripting improbable or affirmatively misleading testimony from witnesses.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that Durham charged Michael Sussmann for coordinating with Hillary’s top staffers months before interviewing any of those staffers and discovering it wasn’t true.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that Durham charged Igor Danchenko relying, in significant part, on the rants Sergei Millian made on his Twitter feed, only to discover, months later, that Millian was unwilling to repeat the same claims at trial under oath.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that Durham prosecuted a man for making a literally true statement to the FBI.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain when John Durham accused Sussmann and Danchenko anew of lying to the FBI after two juries told him he couldn’t prove that claim.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain that John Durham fabricated a claim that even the Russians didn’t make against Hillary and used it as his excuse to continue his investigation for three more years.

Republicans, and Trump himself, did not complain when John Durham affirmatively misrepresented the YotaPhone white paper; instead, Trump used Durham’s misrepresentation to justify making death threats against Michael Sussmann.

Republicans, and Trump himself, knew how much independence Merrick Garland was giving Jack Smith, because Durham told them that he committed all that abuse and yet Garland let him continue unimpeded.

Finally, we want to thank you and your Office for permitting our inquiry to proceed independently and without interference as you assured the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would be the case during your confirmation hearings to become Attorney General of the United States.

And long after it was clear that Garland had given Durham precisely the independence that Republicans, and Trump himself, had demanded, Trump is the one who forced the appointment of a Special Counsel by announcing his run six months ahead of his competitors. Trump took steps that led to someone completely independent investigating his suspected crimes, not Joe Biden, not Merrick Garland. And now he’s trying to pretend that he himself didn’t ensure someone independent would investigate his suspected crimes.

Jack Smith has been living by the rules Republicans demanded, and got, for John Durham.

I don’t expect Trump to care that Jack Smith has been operating under the same rules of independence that Garland gave Durham. Trump needs to claim this is political, to provide his boosters — and probably his own fragile ego — some explanation for this indictment other than that a grand jury of South Floridians determined there was probable cause he committed an unprecedented crime that made this country less safe. I expect Mike Davis to continue reeling out his knowingly false claims, Joe Biden Merrick Garland Joe Biden Merrick Garland. It’s what he is paid to do.

But journalists like Sadie Gurman should know better. Journalists like Sadie Gurman, after presenting proof that Jack Smith is operating with the same independence that John Durham did, owe their readers a description of what it means that this investigation has operated with independence. Journalists like Sadie Gurman should not be drawn in by attempts to delegitimize a prosecution only because Trump belatedly wants to change the rules he himself demanded.

Update: I’ve updated my stolen documents investigation resource page, with key documents, a bit of a timeline, all our posts on the case, plus other useful links (including to dockets of other 18 USC 793 cases).

70 replies
  1. Sanjeevs says:

    I see the NYT has chosen to exclusively refer to this as the ‘Documents case’ and not, say, the ‘Espionage’ case.

    • John Paul Jones says:

      Because it is, mostly, a documents case. Trump is charged under the Espionage Act; he is not charged with espionage. It would be better perhaps if they called it the “Documents Theft Case,” but perhaps they are sticklers for accuracy and have reflected that Trump has not yet been convicted.

      • EuroTark says:

        In my mind, the “Document” case is the still uncharged NARA-case relating to him absconding with thousands of official documents. The case charged in SDFL is the “First Espionage” case.

        • bmaz says:

          Meh, it is completely fine to call it a documents case. Arguing over the nomenclature is silly.

    • Purple Martin says:

      The Espionage Act of 1917 as originally written and amended since would be better named The Official Secrets Act, as it has far more content dealing with identifying and protecting government secrets than what most think of as espionage, or spying.

      As I understand, it provides the legislative authority under which the Executive branch issues Executive Order 13526, which establishes a uniform system for classifying, marking, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.

  2. rattlemullet says:

    I am convinced that the death of democracy and the fall of our constitutional order is coinciding with the death of independent journalism. The loss of newspapers throughout America coupled with the corporatization of the news and media into multinational corporations has produce stenographers spouting the authoritarian party line. This type of false or lack of factual reporting has produced a zombie class of people that are not tether to reality.

    • Sambucus says:

      I think you are correct. I was an entry-level journalist many years ago, back when Cronkite was still on TV every night. Then there was NBC News Overnight, with the incomparable Linda Ellerbee and Lloyd Dobyns. I remember how the Post story on Watergate (finally) blew up.

      Now, the NYT can post an exhaustive article on Trump’s tax dodging with his father, with references and “full color glossy photographs with descriptions on the back of every one”, and no one cares or understands. I could not believe that story didn’t get more traction.

  3. JonathanW says:

    Dr Wheeler, thanks for this juxtaposition. I’ve been following your very in depth coverage of this, so it feels particularly galling when I read things in the mainstream press that just take Durham’s report as fact. I have to admit that some part of me had hoped that Garland would intervene when Durham did some of the egregious things you’ve highlighted (and I know that many more well informed people here have pointed out that prosecutors have a lot of immunity, so I know that it wasn’t a realistic hope).

    But it seems to me that Garland, by doing this, has really brought great credibility to the Trump investigations for those who are paying attention, which seems like a very good thing to me. Speaking for myself, I don’t want to live in a country where the winners arrest the losers for political retribution (in fact, that’s one of my many objections to Trump and the MAGA movement.) Garland’s behavior gives me more confidence that what’s happening here is simply an application of the law to Trump as it would apply to anyone.

      • Scott_in_MI says:

        There are five federal judges in SDFL, which means Cannon had a 20% chance of being assigned the case. The constant conspiracy-mongering about her assignment is getting tiresome.

        • Marinela says:

          Why would Jack Smith gamble on a 20% chance? You loose most of the time on those odds. I don’t think we know why yet.

          • bmaz says:

            Oh, the odds of getting Cannon were far bigger than that, likely over 50% factoring in several other things like relative caseloads etc.

            • Scott_in_MI says:

              Could you elaborate? I was under the impression that assignments were random, but that’s based purely on a non-specialist’s understanding of the media reports.

              • bmaz says:

                It is. It is called the assignment wheel. But several of the judges had a full docket already, especially the senior ones. So there was a very good chance it would be Cannon. As to the prior question, there is going to be delay for numerous reasons anyway, so I dunno, if that really bears out to a great degrees but a lot of people seem to think that was Smith’s rationale. Maybe someday he will tell us!

                • Marinela says:

                  So the senior judges have their plates full, and she was more free, so in this case the wheel process rewards the “incompetence”. Let’s assign the junior, unexperienced judge to this important case. The only thing nefarious if she kept her plate empty as to increase her chances. Is it typical for non senior judges to have fewer cases?

                  • bmaz says:

                    Yeah, and there is nothing apparent whatsoever “nefarious”. Maybe some such fact will appear, but, so far, that is just unfounded. If you have a gripe, you should address it to Smith.

                • Scott_in_MI says:

                  Got it. Thanks! (Yeah, I’d hope that his reasoning on venue would be part of his final report – but of course, the AG isn’t required to make that public either.)

          • Scott_in_MI says:

            The prevailing opinion seems to be that Smith/DOJ thought that the SDFL assignment gamble was a lesser risk than a prolonged fight over venue if the indictment was filed in DC. I’m sure bmaz or someone else who understands these issues better than I do can give a more thorough analysis. Not sure how you figure that someone loses “most of the time” on a 20% downside risk, though.

            • Marinela says:

              Yes, my math was incorrect.

              It was 80% chances (she is not the one) in the case of 5 judges.
              But there are 4 judges as I understand it, 75% chances.
              Adding the senior judges being busy aspect we are down to 50%.

              Anyway, what I was getting at, why would you risk a case with 99.9% chances of winning in DC, to be (completely) jeopardized by having a 50% chances of getting AMC?

            • bmaz says:

              Yes, it really does matter when the District is understaffed. I knew this first hand for a while in D-AZ. There is only so much you can do with multiple vacancies and seniors backed up. And it sometimes makes where you land fairly predictable.

              To give an idea how bad this can be, Chief Judge John Roll, who I considered a friend, went to Gabby Giffords’ “Congress On A Corner” event to thank her, even though she was only in the House and not Senate, for being so determined to help AZ out of its judicial emergency status. He, along with others, was gunned down and murdered for the effort, and Gabby grievously wounded for life. This stuff matters!

              • JonathanW says:

                I think I read somewhere yesterday (NYT maybe) that the SDFL open seats are open because of the “blue-slip” norm in the Senate, and the two GOP senators from FL won’t approve any of Biden’s nominees.

                It strikes me as potentially a recursive version of what the GOP did to Garland when he was a SCOTUS nominee back in 2016, GOP will hold seats open for a future in which they hold the presidency and the senate.

                • bmaz says:

                  The blue slip process is idiotic. Dick Durbin could eliminate it selectively, or entirely, tomorrow. Republicans often did not honor it when they held the Senate, but Dem leadership, including Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin blithely allow it and honor it. It is madness.

        • Hunt Williams says:

          There are 18 judges in the S.D.Fla. It is one of the largest and busiest federal districts in the nation.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. “Hunt Williams” is your second user name; you’ve commented previously as “Cord Williams” though it’s been a few years. Please be sure to stick with one username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Beverley54 says:

        I understand it was just random and am feeling much better after reading Allison Gill’s (Mueller She Wrote) post which included comments from Joyce Vance as follows:

        “Joyce just told god and everybody that there’s a provision in CIPA that allows for an IMMEDIATE right of EXPEDITED APPEAL. So what does that mean?

        It means that if Judge Cannon makes a ridiculous ruling that DoJ wants to appeal, SHE does NOT get to set the briefing schedule. The DoJ can appeal IMMEDIATELY to the 11th circuit – the same circuit that vacated TWO of Cannon’s rulings in the Special Master case.”

        The entire post is here:

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, Vance is just another TV lawyer at this point. And do you know how long an “expedited appeal” can take? It can be fast, or not so much. And the 11th Circuit may have done well the last time, they are fucking horrible as a whole. Don’t hang your hat on that. That is a fool’s game.

  4. Badger Robert says:

    Good morning.
    I am not a good enough lawyer to know how the Special Counsel statutes protect the appointment and the funding of the appointment.
    But it was always my opinion that the investigations into President Clinton and the more recent investigation conducted by Durham were going to be used as precedents.
    What is the quote attributed to Napoleon? “Don’t fight your enemies too often, They will learn your methods.”

  5. Upisdown says:

    For GOP enablers who believe Trump is capable of learning his lesson and behaving properly, like Susan Collins, here is a number to remember: 14. That is the number of days between the time Trump organized a coup attempt and when he stole top secret documents. Two weeks is all that Trump could go without committing a major crime. Be certain Trump will work faster if he ever gets back into the presidency.

    • joel fisher says:

      Whoa..slow down there partner. Trump going 6 days without criminal activity? Nope. He was committing stop the steal fraud every day from sometime at the end of 2000 through now. Apparently, the so-called federal criminal law makes it a felony to defraud morons out of their money. And then there’s the essentially constant obstruction of justice. Hard to say it happened between 1/6 and 1/20, but who would bet against Trump?

    • Spank Flaps says:

      Also there’s the fact that he was found liable for defamation in the E Jean Carroll civil case, then went on national TV the next day and did it again.
      If Trump gets convicted and then pardoned, it would give him a free pass to go and do much worse.

      • ExRacerX says:

        Presidential pardons can only be applied in cases involving federal crimes. Damages awarded via civil litigation do not qualify.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    There seems to be a parallel between Trump’s wailing demands – fully supported by his keening entourage – that he be given what he already has and the performance criteria real CEO’s set for themselves. That is to say, their targets are largely already within reach, which makes being paid their incentive comp – typically, more than half their total comp – a slam dunk. Doesn’t always work, but the process remains.

    There’s also the benefit of putting the Libs on their heels. If they’ve already done what’s demanded of them, and not being as good as Goopers at self-defense, they offer up more in a vain attempt to win the argument. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  7. Tech Support says:

    Former Trump AG and arch conservative Bill Barr appearing on Fox News (paraphrasing):

    “This stuff is seriously bad and Trump is in serious trouble.”

    Fox News (paraphrasing):


  8. klynn says:

    Thank you for this post. A very much needed post.

    “Since then, paid propagandists have been chanting out “Joe Biden Merrick Garland Joe Biden Merrick Garland” talking points like wind-up toys, because repetition is how you get low-information Trump supporters and members of Congress to believe false claims.”

    This is a perfect statement. As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve been trying to figure out an indictment media graphic to track indictment propaganda with the following columns filled with names and checks:
    1) supports: justice, jury of peers and behavior that protects our military and diplomats

    2) Does not support: justice, jury of peers, and behavior that protects our military and diplomats

    3) Promoted violence in media

    4) Promoted disinformation in media

    5) Promoted seeking justice based on evidence in media.

    6) Indication of individual comments coming from: politician (and party), media (which source), donor, citizen member of group (Proud Boys, Oath Keepers…)

    7) Whether comment was amplified in social media.

    8) Did they flip-flop to pro democracy stand after release of indictment?

    9) Does commenter receive strong foreign influence and from what country?

    This concept might be best as a crowdsourced development into a graphic form. I’m receptive to feedback. Maybe it is not a great idea. However, it is vitally significant that so much criticism has been thrown at this process and at a “a jury of peers” determining the need for an indictment based on presented evidence. I think more people care about justice and would value a graphic simply showing those who are using propaganda in this instance to destroy the fabric of democracy and our judicial system.

    Thank you EW, for your fight on Twitter against the Firehose of Falsehoods.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Interesting idea, at least to me.

      I would question the data points (columns) just to make sure you cover the range of questions you want to ask and to not overlap similar questions.

      Adding in some of the fantastic timelines that MW and others have given might further enhance the presentation.

      And, as always, look to see if this type of analysis isn’t already being done in some form – perhaps different but perhaps useful as a base.

      • klynn says:

        I have not yet found anyone gathering this information and posting it into a graphic. EW’s Twitter thread tracking all the anti-indictment comments comes the closest.

  9. Rugger_9 says:

    While much of the press seems mystified about the GOP rush to defend Defendant-1 by all means (including Vance’s shutdown / defunding of DOJ) let’s remember that all of the leadership is thoroughly awash in the muck, from playing footsie with Putin (remember the RT dinner in Moscow) and dark money and various illegalities. It leads to some interesting attempts to justify Trump’s actions and admissions (i.e. Comer’s admission that the ‘Biden tapes’ might not be real) that they’ve got nothing valid. The press still wants their horse race, so we get more CNN town halls and slanted articles that have been well-covered by others here.

    Bottom line, the GOP is aware that if Defendant-1 goes down in flames their party will do so too. That means we will see everything getting done like we have seen so far.

    This post by EW will be ignored by the courtier press who seem to be remarkably unconcerned about the Faux News ‘wannabe dictator’ chyron. That’s dog whistling with a bullhorn.

  10. Georgia Girl says:

    As Oscar Wilde might have said about Trump: He can resist anything but temptation. Does anyone think Trump can resist harassing the Mar-a-Lago employees who appeared before the grand jury, despite the judge’s instructions?

  11. Frank Probst says:

    Can anyone give a ballpark number of the lawyers who are both credentialed to represent people in the SDFL AND have Top Secret security clearances? I think Trump will find someone eventually, but I wonder about Nauta.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      … and want to not get paid and want to be forever tarnished with fools-gold lacquer? Maybe George Santos can add to his already impressive resume with credentials to see the most secret of secrets. The stench is overwhelming.

    • bmaz says:

      It is a bigger subset than people likely think. I could find one tomorrow, but am not Trump. And, as long as there is a supervising atty in SDFL to take on the terrifying task, it could be cleared attys from any federal court, they would just need to get jumped in. Although local would be preferable.

      • Shadowalker says:

        I suspect the retainer may be a problem as well. Trump won’t pay up front unless he has to, and you still have the problem he lacks self control for any length of time and constantly ignores advice.

        • bmaz says:

          No, but good private criminal defense lawyers expect a fee upfront, or they don’t sign on. It may be flat, or flat earned plus. Especially on such a huge case. If you can’t pay, you can’t play. Back in the day, the colloquial reference was “Better bring Mr. Green with you”. That means money up front, and lots of it.

          • Shadowalker says:

            I was thinking more about the amount he has to pay upfront. Which I imagine will be substantial, he only needs someone to drag this out past the election, and if he wins that, can make it all go away.

            Maybe he can get Tom Finton to represent him, after all, Finton was the one who advised Trump that because of the Clinton Socks Tapes, he could claim they were personal under the PRA. I’m kidding, since Finton isn’t a lawyer, but Trump’s real lawyers at the time were telling him to give the damned documents back.

            • bmaz says:

              Fitton is not a lawyer, he can’t represent anybody. This is serious, and Trump needs serious lawyers. He is not good with doing that.

              • Shadowalker says:

                No, he’s not. Seems this could be another example of him knowing more than those around him. He could always represent himself, but then he would have no one to blame but himself when he loses.

                OT But think I just heard SCOTUS has affirmed 11th circuit on the Smith case and no double jeopardy trying in another district when venue was a problem.

      • Eschscholzia says:

        another question for BMAZ:
        If the Trump (PAC) funded Woodward is going to be Nauta’s de facto lead lawyer, does that make being the SFDL supervising lawyer of record less appealing and riskier in terms of what Woodward might do that might get them both sanctioned?

          • Susan D Einbinder says:

            Can you please briefly explain the process of finding a lawyer – how long can it take, in general? Is there some regulation that it has be done within a set period of time? With the jumping in, too – and can the judge get involved in supervising any part of it? I am not a lawyer (although my sister is, and a judge too, but in a county court).

            • bmaz says:

              There are no set rules. The court should not be involved other than, if needed, to order that the defendant get representation else a FPD or panel attorney will be appointed.

    • vigetnovus says:

      Bmaz or other legal folk–

      Since Trump’s main tactic is delay delay delay, could the notice of appearance by Kise on a permanent basis be just a tactic to delay proceedings until he can get a security clearance? And given his recent FARA filing, what happens if he can’t?

  12. Savage Librarian says:

    I initially thought the Florida GJ was some kind of head fake, mostly because there were already visible, strong ties to DC. But it was also because my own experience with some civil cases involved a few tactical maneuvers utilized for psychological reasons.

    One such maneuver resulted in a consequence that exceeded my expectations. And, I believe that was because the individual it impacted did not want their “boxes” exposed, so to speak. So, that person chose the path of least resistance to the demands of their wounded ego. But not without extraordinarily painful convolutions and a lengthy process.

    In my fractal world (where I sometimes feel like I am a character in a meta study of comp lit,) there were also some legal links to Miami and Atlanta. And there were nested elements where people in one situation had direct relationships to another situation.

    But when one significant issue was resolved, unfortunately it opened up an avenue for a devious, manipulative, revengeful person to retaliate. That, then, directly impacted the case I have discussed here before, which involved my experience with white supremacists. It took me years to realize how that happened and how other people were duped.

    Today I believe some of the duped people would have taken an entirely different and more ethical pathway, had they not been deceived. And, through the grapevine, I was able to somewhat confirm that.

    Some time back, Marcy mentioned that there may be more than one person in Trump world who is sharing valuable information with the investigations. And she said we may never know who some of those people are. In my personal experience with my own civil case, I found that to be true.

    Observations I have made of what we know of Trump’s environment and interactions lead me to think that is true with respect to him, as well. In my mind, I have a short wish list of some people who may be making amends for past lives by now contributing to the peaceful resolution of a problem they once fueled.

  13. kpavlovic says:

    OT regarding the above comments. I think I understand why EW continues to refer to people like Gurman as real journalists, but this post and others like it actually make a strong case that Gurman and others like her are not ‘real’ journalists. I’m an expert witness in a backwater area of regulation. If I were to lay out all the facts that Gurman does, omit the facts that Gurman does, and then conclude that this is a political indictment, people would call me a hack, not a real expert witness.

Comments are closed.