A Guide to the False Claims John Durham Will Tell Congress

I finally finished my last post on the Durham Report last week before heading off for a visit with family for a week. This post gathers them all together in one place.

John Durham’s investigation was a four year effort to flip the script: to make Hillary Clinton — the victim of a nation-state attack in 2016 — its villain.

Durham and his sponsor, Bill Barr, did so as part of a larger effort — one that also included Barr’s sabotage of both the release of the Mueller Report and the ongoing investigations into Trump’s people — to discredit the investigation started because Trump’s Coffee Boy bragged about learning of the Russian attack in advance, and he wasn’t the only one. The Rat-Fucker, too, got advance notice, the Rat-Fucker, too, bragged about Russia’s assistance to the campaign, though because the FBI didn’t investigate Guccifer 2.0 aggressively enough in real time, it took several years to unpack Roger Stone’s advance knowledge.

And so, in an attempt to negate the results of a very real and very productive investigation, Durham sought out targets via whom he could avenge that investigation into Trump. The investigation itself failed to Lock Her Up, to say nothing of jailing any of the men and women of “the Deep State” who believed that enthusiastic foreknowledge of a Russian attack on a presidential candidate was an important thing to investigate, right along with Emirati efforts to cultivate politicians of both parties, the improper handling of classified information, and suspected (but ultimately uncorroborated) corruption.

Durham tried, but failed, to criminalize efforts to keep the country safe from Russian influence operations. Likewise, he tried, but failed, to criminalize political speech, a political candidate’s effort to raise concerns about her opponent’s very real ties to the country that had targeted her. The two prosecutions Durham brought in an attempt to obtain evidence to support the conspiracy theory that animated his entire investigation — or, short of that, to lead the public to believe in his conspiracy theory, regardless of the evidence — ended in embarrassing acquittals, but not before devastating the livelihoods of his targets and others, many of whom had previously played valuable roles in keeping the US safe.

In a sane world, with a diligent press, that should have ended it. In a sane world, with a diligent press, this four year effort would be recognized as the weaponization of DOJ that Trump-whisperers imagine might only happen in the future, or that Republican supporters of fascism set up a committee to falsely claim happened, only to Republicans, in the past.

But that didn’t happen.

So here we are, six months after Durham’s second humiliating trial loss, that of Igor Danchenko, the one where Durham personally led the prosecution, and he finally released the required report on his investigation. By regulation the report is supposed to be just a record of his prosecutions and declinations. Rather than admit that there had been no there there to his conspiracy theory, Durham engaged in omissions and false claims to bolster his conspiracy theory.

Tomorrow, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee will invite Durham to repeat his false claims.

Here’s a guide to some of the false claims he may make before Congress.


John Durham Lied about Who Told the False Stories

Eight Things Not Mentioned in the Durham Report

John Durham Committed the “Crime” of “Inferring” of Which He Accused Rodney Joffe

“Ridiculous:” Durham’s Failed Clinton Conspiracy Theory

John Durham Fabricated His Basis to Criminalize Oppo Research

John Durham’s Disinformation Problem


John Durham covered up what really happened with the Alfa Bank investigation

The Dishonest and Incompetent FBI Work John Durham Learned to Love

FBI Cyber Division’s Enduring Blue Pill Mystery

John Durham’s Blind Man’s Bluff on DNS Visibility


John Durham committed the prosecutorial errors he attacked when the FBI made them, but worse

Doo-Doo Process: John Durham Claims to Know Better than Anthony Trenga and Two Juries

John Durham, High Priest of the Cult of the Coffee Boy


The press hasn’t called out Durham even while they’ve identified his false claims

How Jonathan Swan Covered [Up] John Durham’s Corruption

How CNN Inculpated John Durham While Purportedly Exonerating Trump

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


Bonus track!

Trophy Documents: The Entire Point Was to Make FBI Obedient

37 replies
  1. Marji Campbell says:

    Thanks for the summary and heads up about the congressional testimony. I’m hoping that dems like Daniel Goldman can push back on the lies and make Durham and the republicans look stupid. (Btw, does anyone else think the adjective “odious” applies to Durham?)

  2. Peterr says:

    Let’s put Durham’s two failed efforts to prosecute Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko into perspective. From the Pew Research Center:

    Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system – and acquittals are even rarer.

    Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

    Most defendants who did go to trial, meanwhile, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge. (Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.)

    Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

    More properly, 0.004% of FY 2018 federal defendants went to trial and won. Given those kinds of odds (and assuming the stats are similar in later years), it says something that Sussman and Danchenko *both* beat Durham in court.

    • Molly Pitcher says:

      Thank you for the statistics and the really surprising perspective. It underscores the total failure by Durham.

    • Rayne says:

      What’s frustrating is the average American won’t bother to do the legwork you just did, making the point Durham lack of success was unusual (and that’s because there was no case compounded by fuckupedness).

      They will only have heard all these years since Durham’s appointment that he’s investigated the origins of the Russia investigation. They won’t even care what came of it, because the point was to sow in the public’s mind the illegitimacy of any concerns Trump was influenced by and serving Russian interests. Durham as special counsel was a psyop.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        Correct, but 0.4% is still a very tiny percentage: less than half of 1%.

        I’d like to add the link to the official document provided by the Pew Research Center article which Peterr had discovered and referenced, which lists the real numbers in a table (broken down by disposition and offense): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_d4_0930.2018.pdf.

        Thank you, Peterr, for putting the outcome of the Durham investigation into perspective in the first place!

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        The figure would have been correct if he’d not presented it with a “%”. IOW, only .004 of the 80k cases wound up with an acquittal. The Pew document would have put it better to say “…fewer than 1/2 of 1 percent went to trial and won their cases.”

      • Mart7890 says:

        Not trying to be difficult, but it is one in 2,500, not 1 in 250, or 0.04%.
        300 x 300 = 90,000
        300 x 3000 =
        See what happens when you don’t learn the maths using a slide rule?

  3. Bay State Librul says:

    Durham is still on the payroll.
    Why doesn’t Garland suggest he perform one daily act of kindness, listen to jazz, take up chanting and tender his resignation.

    • Peterr says:

      Are you sure about that? I thought a special counsel’s work ended when they made their official report to the AG, detailing their investigation and charging decisions, assuming all trials arising from the investigation had been concluded or passed off to the relevant local US Attorneys.

      • Bay State Librul says:

        True. Not sure.
        I figure he has comp time, sick time, vacation time.
        But a trip to Italy is out of the question.

    • Building Guy says:

      Just spitballing, But:

      In Jazz, the space between notes is a substantial part of the composition and tonal experience.

      In Durham, the space between his ears IS the entire experience. There is no substance.

      • gruntfuttock says:

        ‘In Jazz, the space between notes is a substantial part of the composition and tonal experience.’

        Not just in Jazz, Debussy and Mozart are, possibly apocryphally, supposed to have made similar statements. I think I have a memory from my teens of somebody saying that Anton Webern stated that the music lies between the notes but the internet doesn’t back me up there. Ah, well, memories, eh? Maybe I dreamed it :-)

        Whoever said it, Morton Feldman made a career out of it and, if I do nothing else useful with my life, I can ask everyone to listen to his wonderful music. ‘For Bunita Marcos’ is a particularly fine example of how to do so very much with so very little.

        (I would post a link to Marc-Andre Hamelin’s version but my computer seems to be dying tonight.)

  4. BRUCE F COLE says:

    Thank you so much, Marcy, for the mountain of work that those stories represent. The civic value for our society at this critical juncture in history is immeasurable.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      Here’s a thought: this page should be sent to all the Dem members of the Judiciary Committee. Here’s their membership page:

      It’s best if their constituents send it, but anybody can do it. I’m sending the link to this page to my family who live in Seattle, asking if they’ll then send it to Jayapal, but I’m also going to send it to everyone on that committee even though none of them represent my district.

      I’m going to title my emails: “The most comprehensive takedown of Durham’s dishonest, partisan work”.

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        I guess I got that wrong. Only constituents can send them emails through their websites.

      • Clare Kelly says:

        I sent this to my House Rep before I even finished reading it.

        Thank you, again, Marcy.

        (Btw, one simply needs the proper zip code, including the extra 4 digit code, to send a Rep an email.)

  5. Upisdown says:

    I’m just a dumb outsider, but this is what I don’t get. Durham makes a big thing about an intercept warning that Hillary Clinton planned to accuse Russia and Trump of spreading dirt on her. The intercept was from Russia after that country had already hacked her emails and released them to aid the Trump campaign. Durham blames the FBI for not attaching sufficient credence to this rumor. Did Durham even consider that Russia might be lying?

  6. BGThenNow says:

    Zillow is a good resource for addresses in various locations if anyone feels the need for an address in certain places. just sayin. Also, some of the home offices are sometimes easier to reach. Durbin, Hirono, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Booker, Coons, Blumenthal, Ossoff, Padilla, Welch. And um, Feinstein.

    • Rayne says:

      Please use Realtor.com instead, not Zillow or other online real estate listing company. Zillow has messed with local real estate values based on traffic to its site by buying up properties to flip. They’ve been burned by this but we don’t know what they’ve done to change their business model.

      Realtors relying on Realtor.com are still fairly old school and only interested in the clickthroughs which result in showings.

      • bgThenNow says:

        Thank you, Rayne. I was unaware. Real estate/flipping and corporate buying has really impacted the rental market along with ABNB. It is terrible here.

  7. Rugger_9 says:

    The hearing went as expected from the get-go. Durham’s opening statement continued a series of falsehoods following Gym Jordan’s fact-free screed. These included accusing Danchenko in particular of being an asset of some foreign power. This leads me to a couple of notes.

    Is Durham liable for a defamation lawsuit by Danchenko because of his statements made under oath today? A jury already ruled that Durham’s claims were indeed unsupported, so does the relentless repetition by Durham under oath rise to the level of intentional malice or whatever the legal standard is? I do not see how lying under oath to Congress is in line with the duties of his office even if poorly performed (i.e. incompetence versus criminality).

    The hearing was televised, which I think was a political mistake by Gym Jordan because while Faux News (et al) can edit out the Ds, the whole thing is on Youtube and thus everyone else will know the holes, starting with Nadler’s getting Durham to admit Mueller was correct about Papadopoulos and the Aussies.

    The GOP spent a lot of time lying with numbers to make their case (480 witnesses, etc.), and seem to be mystified that ‘opening’ an investigation can happen over a weekend.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Johnson of GA nailed Durham on the Danchenko allegations in the report and how the jury disagreed with him (as finders of fact). Thus, my question above even if Durham tried desperately to tap dance around it (‘included the evidence’).

      Good grief, Issa goes the ‘unindicted co-conspirators’ route. Typically stupid on his part, because his side of the aisle offers the ‘target rich environment’ for such sliming.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Ted Lieu declared war.

      One thing to remember about the Aussie connection and its importance is that apparently the ASIO (their CIA) just had a mole exposed. The Australian 4 Corners program did a piece on that which is on Youtube, and frankly anything to do with Russians will warrant rapid and thorough investigation especially around elections.

      Durham also said that not a ‘single substantive piece of the Steele Dossier was corroborated by Mueller or anyone else’. That’s false unless he’s trying to weasel word ‘substantive’.

  8. Charles Wolf says:

    It’s the 21st, and seeing as how this morning’s opening statement by Jerry Nadler at the Jody Gym rodeo sounded very much like, not plagiarism but, a parallel world version of this article, I suspect he reads EW on these matters… or at least he has very similar thoughts, Great Minds and such.
    Enjoy The Summer of Indictments.

Comments are closed.