How John Durham Buried Evidence He Had Been Doing the Work of Russian Spies … and then Tulsi Gabbard Buried More
As I’ve been showing, the Durham classified annex goes to significant lengths to hide that a Russian email discussing creating a conspiracy theory about the American Deep State, which he dates to July 26, precedes the draft SVR memo he claims has animated his years-long hunt, which dates to July 27 or later.
You can date the draft SVR memo (Durham doesn’t provide its date at all in the unclassified report, and if he does here, the date has been redacted) by tracking the inputs (red arrows) into the fake emails on which the draft memo is purportedly based (blue arrows), as I lay out here.
You can review a live copy of this (without the arrows) at this link.
The fake email integrated into the memo itself — bearing the date of July 25 but mentioning the Olympics — derives from the Thomas Rid story and the real Tim Maurer email — but it appears to have been altered to add the reference to the Olympics on July 27 (because a copy without the Olympics mention is attached to an email dated July 27).
And the fake email, bearing the date of July 27, claiming that Hillary approved a plan on July 26 appears to derive from the real July 27 Julianne Smith email soliciting a totally innocuous letter condemning Trump’s attack on NATO. We might learn more about its creation, except the email to which it is attached is entirely redacted in the annex.
That is, so long as his claim that the Deep State memo is dated “the day after” two emails purporting to be dated June 25 is accurate, then the emails and draft report that guided his entire investigation were the conspiracy theory proposed on July 26. Durham did the work of Russian spies for four years.
If this is, indeed, the timeline, then Durham — as well as John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel — should have recognized they were pursuing an investigation of Hillary Clinton based off a deliberate Russian spy hoax.
There’s one more thing that supports this argument — and reveals how problematic it is for Durham (who continued his investigation for two more years after he would have concluded the emails were “composites”) and the others: the extent to which he, as well as the person who redacted this for release, tried to obscure all this in the classified annex.
This kind of deceit was not remotely unusual for Durham (as I’ll return to when I review what Durham did do after concluding he was using a clear Russian hoax as his excuse to investigate Hillary Clinton). Andrew DeFilippis, especially, did this kind of stuff all the time. Here, where he used email timestamps in two different time zones to falsely suggest that Fusion was the source for a public link about the Alfa Bank anomalies, is just one such example.
The list below is overwhelming. The most important detail, however, is how Durham treats the real email from Julianne Smith asking people to sign onto some totally innocuous letter criticizing Trump’s attacks on NATO. Durham obtained one copy of the email from the SVR trove and another from a subpoena, presumably to Smith or CNAS, where she worked.
The annex separates the disclosure that Julianne Smith had also been hacked (noted in footnote 27) from the discussion of the email she sent on July 27, obscuring that Durham obtained two copies of that email, one from the SVR collection (cited in the annex as Document Classified Appendix Document 9, which also includes the Maurer email), and one via subpoena (cited in the unclassified report as XXXX-0014561). He does that even though discussion of the “certain emails, attachments, and documents that contain language and references with the exact same or similar verbiage to the materials referenced above” precedes that discussion. In the unclassified report, he treats this email differently, effectively treating it as corroboration for the claims in the fake report, rather than a source used to fabricate it (though he later uses it as corroboration after concluding that the underlying emails are composites based on … that email).
In either case, however, if he is treating Smith’s July 27 email as a source (and that’s one place it appears in his report), then the draft memo must post-date the July 26 Deep State email.
On July 26, Russian spies decided it’d be cool to start a conspiracy theory about the Deep State. And on July 27, having stolen that Smith email, they decided to claim that Hillary — as opposed to some other Deep State entity — decided to smear Donald Trump.
And everyone involved in this is working really hard to hide that they knew that.
Update: On the topic of Smith’s email, I’ve been puzzling over the redaction in this passage; I wondered if Durham expressed some obnoxious opinion about her.
It was suggested to me, however, that that redaction might hide Durham speculating about what Russian spooks thought — maybe something like, “it is a logical deduction that [Russian spies believed that]”… The mention of the spies would therefore justify classification on classification bases. But holy hell if it were something like that, it would mean Durham was trying to rationalize why Russian spooks fabricated emails to make up this claim.
Durham’s deceits
By July 2021, John Durham had evidence to conclude the emails behind a draft SVR memo on which his entire investigation rested were “composites,” that is, fabrications. But he continued on for two more years, attempting and failing to create evidence to substantiate that Russian disinformation by prosecuting Michael Sussmann and Igor Danchenko. To hide that he had done that, he engaged in a great deal of deceit in both his unclassified and classified reports.
- Durham frames his focus around three bullets John Ratcliffe included in his 2020 memo sending these materials to Lindsey Graham. The first bullet claims to focus on “Russian intelligence analysis,” suggesting that his focus was on a draft SVR report that leads the narrative in the classified appendix, but is actually the last document temporally. But the second bullet refers to John Brennan notes that quote not the purported end analysis, but an email advancing the plot to frame Hillary.
- The two exhibits — Brennan’s notes and a referral from the CIA that he couldn’t prove ever got sent to FBI — include redactions that obscure the actual content of both. Importantly, witnesses were not shown the full exhibits, though Brennan correctly stated that Durham misrepresented what his notes were about.
- Durham misrepresented how many witnesses (and who) testified that they had not seen the referral memo.
- Thereafter in the unclassified report, Durham referred to “Clinton Plan intelligence” as if it focused on that discreet claim or even the draft memo, when it referred to the larger body of intelligence obtained via the Dutch, and so in context the plan to frame Hillary. In the classified report, Durham referred to Clinton campaign plan, rather than the intelligence asserting it.
- Durham mentioned two Leonard Benardo emails early in the annex (there were actually four documents claiming to be emails in the report), then discussed the earlier, apparently finished, intelligence from earlier 2016 implicating Loretta Lynch, suggesting they were the emails. He returns to this strategy later in the appendix.
- Then, the beginning of the section focused on the SVR documents starts with the draft memo, not the specific emails. He keeps moving the ball.
- The date of the draft memo appears nowhere in the unclassified report and may not appear in the classified report either (if it is there, it is redacted).
- The annex separates the disclosure that Julianne Smith had also been hacked (noted in footnote 27) from the discussion of the email she sent on July 27, obscuring that Durham obtained two copies of that email, one from the SVR collection (cited in the annex as Document Classified Appendix Document 9, which also includes the Maurer email), and one via subpoena (cited in the unclassified report as XXXX-0014561). He does that even though discussion of the email appears after the introduction, “certain emails, attachments, and documents that contain language and references with the exact same or similar verbiage to the materials referenced above.” In the unclassified report, he treats this email differently, effectively treating it as corroboration for the claims in the fake email, rather than a source used to fabricate it (though he also uses it as corroboration after concluding that the underlying emails are composites based on … that email). In either case, however, if he is treating Smith’s July 27 email as a source, then the draft memo must post-date the July 26 Deep State email talking about ginning up a conspiracy theory.
- After introducing the Benardo emails, the annex discloses there were several versions of the July 25 one, which helps to obscure that one copy of the earliest version was attached to a July 27 email, which in turn suggests the reference to the Olympics was added on July 27. As noted, the redactions exacerbate this sleight of hand.
- The annex hides that the Deep State email predates the draft memo by discussing the two versions of the July 25 Benardo email in-between.
- The annex doesn’t appear to explain that one of two copies of the first fake July 25 email (without the Olympics) is considered part of the same document as the July 27 “vilify” email.
- The description that the real Tim Maurer email is the same date as the fake July 25 emails gives the impression that they were made the same day, when at least the revisions of the fake email probably happened on July 27.
- Durham provides a description of this (then-dated) article about a voting hacker for hire, but does not provide a description of the Thomas Rid article discussed in the email, which is not only a clear source for the draft memo, but should make analysts look twice at the Russian idiom in English in the fake Benardo email, because Rid discusses the language games behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona at some length.
- When Durham concedes the emails to which the draft memo is sourced are composites, he does not name CNAS, where Smith worked, even though earlier in the section he says she was hacked too.
Lying with redactions
- The introduction to the draft memo redacts details about what is in it, most notably the emails the entire annex purports to focus on.
- That continues in the redactions after the draft memo. This obscures which email was incorporated into the draft memo: the one referring to the Olympics. The redaction introducing the first fake July 25 email further obscures this, making it harder to figure out that Classified Appendix Document 6 is a July 27 email with one of the first versions of the July 25 email (that is, before the Olympics were added) attached.
- The redaction of the email after the July 27 “vilify” one obscures that the July 27 Benardo email discussing Hillary’s approval is attached to that redacted email and not the “vilify” one, further obscuring that the emails dated July 25 were likely revised on July 27, to add the Olympics reference.
I’ve struggled to follow the numerous embedded timelines (some of them invented– as you have shown), so I was glad to see this post pointing out what I had surmised you were getting at–that Durham knowingly played fast and loose with forgeries to go after Clinton people. Do you know whether these documents had already been reviewd by the Mueller team and were they mentioned in any sections of the Mueller report?
When Barr (AG under Trump I) named John Durham as Special Council to continue his work ‘investigating the investigators,’ Barr made public statements suggesting that Durham would uncover significant wrongdoing and validate Trump’s claims of a “deep state” plot against him. I wonder whether Barr was referring to these same doctored emails?
Anybody know if Durham is a known alcoholic or otherwise impaired?
Some consider a conniver who conveniently ignores facts, or even makes up facts to support an agenda – to have an impairment. The impairment is called loose morals with a lack of character.
What I’ve always found fascinating about the Durham case is really a question of human nature. I see it in my workplace all the time, how people work backwards in their head from the outcome they want to the logical framework + facts to support that outcome, facts and systems be damned. I continue to be mesmerized by the question of whether people like Durham know that they’re doing this and feel bad, know that they’re doing this and don’t care, or have convinced themselves of their own narrative. I see all 3 types in my workplace, so I know all 3 are possible.
Not sure what your line of work is, but attorneys—all attorneys—are officers of the court, sworn to uphold their oath of candor to the court. Prosecutors working for the United States Department of Justice are held to a higher standard. Knowingly using doctored materials to frame two people—and smear a third, Hillary Clinton—is, at a bare minimum, a severe violation of DOJ rules and of the oath he swore. Doing it on behalf of a hostile foreign intelligence service is, in the most generous reading, reprehensible.
There are a bunch of attorneys (and judges) in this maladministration who should be disbarred. Or behind bars.
The number of attorneys who’ve faced sanctions, professional, reputational and legal for their actions on behalf of Client-1 is staggering, including losing their licenses and even jail time. And not just Rudy Colludy. Nothing’s worth losing your bar card—certainly not for representing Epstein’s closest wingman.
Agreed.
Shame there’s no short word like ‘disbarred’ for being put behind bars. Sure, there’s imprisoned, jailed, confined, interned, incarcerated… but they don’t have that succinct snap like ‘disbarred’ does.
‘Enbarred’?
Meh. I’ll keep looking.
Breaking those rules and their own 9th Commandment is allowable as long as it serves “god’s plan” is the premise of their operating system. That belief is a fig leaf that gets them a pass with the church crowd even as it is clear the underlying reasons are racism and misogyny for their actions.
The 4th possibility is they are “the ends justify the means” people. And that the ends are either religious or lust for power or both. One only has to look at one of the authors of the 2025 Plan who said that he wanted to be intentionally cruel to the Deep Staters he cut from the federal government. They are jihadists on a mission. Norms and laws will not stand in their way.
I too witnessed many aspects of human nature in my past corporate life- some admirable, some not so much. We employed thousands of people and had a rather busy HR department stemming from bad choices people made. It was my job to liaison with HR to determine consequences for bad choices some employees made, and limit risk to the company. I developed an overly simplistic view that people fall into one of two groups, depending on their priority- integrity or selfishness. It was the selfish people that kept HR busy. An example would be a healthy employee parking in a handicap zone. That ( frequent) one always drove me nuts. I’d not be surprised to find some of these people unnecessarily and selfishly occupying a handicapped zone.
I can see these men, Durham, Barr, Graham, etc, etc, etc, telling themselves that whatever lying they were doing or encouraging, whatever embrace of Russian attacks on our own country they did, it was all ok because we could not ever ever have a President Hilary Clinton.
It’s amazing and deeply sad (on them) that misogyny is one of the most powerful weapons to be wielded in our country. With the help that most people will believe almost anything if they’re told a woman did it.
Yes, amplifying misogyny worked all too well to keep Hillary out of the White House. And although the names and circumstances were different, the unrestricted hatred of the idea of a Black woman being president was palpable last year, and led to unscrupulous and possibly illegal strategies by the other team.
In 2008, for me, it was character. Claims of coming under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia was too much for me and the better choice for me at that time was Barack Obama.
In 2016, for me, after having worked in the Obama Admin, Hillary being the better states person with more experience over Trump, and who I saw as being a different Hillary than the 2008 Hillary, was the better choice.
With Kamala, I believe it was straight-up misogyny that kept her from being POTUS.
A 70-year old woman who still works full-time, and who rides in my vanpool, is left-leaning, but does not want a woman POTUS. She cited many women she knows feel this way. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Disappointing if true.
This 74-year-old voted for Kamala. Fck misogyny: she’d have been a far better president than The Felon Guy has ever been.
I was more surprised by Hillary losing to Trump. She was so smart, articulate, and could think on her feet far better than him. Fast forward 8 years when many claim he has dementia, and he defeats another woman. I was less surprised this time. I still hold hope that I will see a woman in the Oval Office in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.
@ P J Evans August 9, 2025 at 10:33 pm
100%
Just as Al Gore would have been a better POTUS than GWBush, Kamala Harris would have been a far better POTUS than the sexual deviant, convicted felon we have now.
When I read comments at Faux, it’s as if they’re conditioned to have a visceral hated of anyone or anything to the left of them. That the Right makes right.
They truly believes the Dems of the 1800s were Liberals and that Conservatives won the Civil War. I kid you not. They think the founding fathers were conservative. I point out that the Age of Enlightenment was anything but conservative.
It’s frustrating to point out their ignorance to them, because they don’t believe ANYTHING a person to the left of them says.
The thing is, they accept what they are told by people in their bubble at face value. No curiosity to check if the statement is true.
It’s frustrating AF—I told some friends the other night, everything they claimed to once believe in, standing up to Russian gangsters in the kremlin launching wars of aggression, defending abused kids and going after sex traffickers—it’s all bs, it’s all good because he hates the same people they do. Didn’t go over so great TBH.
“No curiosity” is close to being one of their defining traits, along with willingness to believe whatever they’re told by someone they accept as Authority.
(They call us ‘sheep’, but they have all the behavior of sheep themselves.)
Al Gore would have been President had the Clintons returned to Arkansas after Bill’s term.
Every other calculation you articulate on casting your vote for President since then has been mine as well.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/147b725e9162e947e144c0f19afa313ec5031d397f9a9e8d5183afabb7cc5e30.png
***don’t click if a meme of Trump sexually abusing his base portrayed as a farm animal will offend you***
(^^^ Its actually a screen shot from South Park Season 27, Episode 1.)
“The redaction of the email after the July 27 “vilify” one obscures that the July 27 Benardo email discussing Hillary’s approval is attached to that redacted email and not the “vilify” one, further obscuring that the emails dated July 25 were likely revised on July 27, to add the Olympics reference.”
This obscuring has me asking questions. Marcy, as you know IANAL nor intel expert, but I went back and reread around a dozen articles/posts from the period the Dutch caught the Russians infiltrating/hacking the DNC emails. I may be misunderstanding but it appears the Dutch have the email trove the Russians messed with? I confirmed at least they obtained a collection of internal Russian intelligence reports and memos, however some articles reference the emails RU (Cozy Bear) gathered, while some articles state “snippets of emails.” My brain is a bit rusty but if they have copies of the hacked and doctored emails, the Dutch, not just the RU intel, could “reverse engineer” to figure out the missing email couldn’t they? And if yes, the Dutch could potentially release everything without redactions?
Yup.
THe Dutch could do this.
To know the Dutch could do this makes Durham, Tulsi and Ratcliffe look like failures.
Timing wise, I know when I would release all of it if I were the Dutch intel. It would certainly change dynamics for a cold climate meeting.
Hey Netherlands! Thank you for all your hard work!
This is a fascinating angle that klynn brings up, implicit in EW’s reporting. The question then is what is happening behind closed doors with this intelligence, which could serve as extortion material if only its public release could be made to mean what it DOES mean by the political press.
Trump has rendered himself essentially blackmail-proof, however. His consistent devaluation of facts and truth has neutralized such bombshells in advance. Trump himself might not even understand the import of the Dutch intelligence at this point (his grasp on reality seems mercurial to me), but his various handlers can rest assured in his immortal ability to devalue it.