john durham e s q

7 25 both rebooted and attacked in epstein deflection traitor 2

actually it's not robert JOHN HENRY DURHAM NOT J

SEE STEELE DOSSIER ~

continuing zombie effort to undermine mueller russia collusion deep state BS hoax

not fox working the refs (node)

STEELE DOSS FAIL

Luke Harding wrote:^[73]

At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months—during the first half of the year—Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.

Passing reports to intelligence agencies

Steele has said he soon found "troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government". According to his sources, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit".^[74] According to Harding, "Steele was shocked by the extent of collusion his sources were reporting", and told his friends: "For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience."^[70] Steele felt what he had unearthed "was something of huge significance, way above party politics".^[75] American reporter Howard Blum described Steele's rationale for becoming a whistleblower: "The greater good trumps all other concerns."^[75]

On his own initiative, Steele decided to also pass the information to British and American intelligence services because he believed the findings were a matter of national security for both countries.^[18][33] In 2018, Steele told a UK parliamentary investigation that Theresa May's British government covered up the evidence he provided them of Trump's Russian ties and took no actions, and that Boris Johnson suppressed a report about the intelligence in the dossier that was prepared by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.^[76] After long delay, the report was published on July 21, 2020.^[77]

According to Simpson's testimony, Steele, who enjoyed a good working reputation "for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on Russia-related issues for British intelligence,^[78] approached the FBI because he was concerned that Trump, then a candidate, was being blackmailed by Russia,^[79] and he became "very concerned about whether this represented a national security threat".^[18] Steele believed the intelligence community "needed urgently to know—if it didn't already—that the next possible U.S. president was potentially under the sway of Russia".^[80]

In early July 2016, Steele called seasoned FBI agent Michael Gaeta, who was stationed in Rome, and asked him to come to London so he could show him his findings. Because he was assigned to the U.S. embassy in Rome, Gaeta sought and was granted approval for the trip from Victoria Nuland, who was then the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. When he arrived in London on July 5, 2016, he met with Steele at his office,^[79] and he was given a copy of Steele's first report, dated June 20, 2016 (Report 80).^[35]: 95 His reaction was "shock and horror".^[81][79] Alarmed by what he read, Gaeta remarked, "I have to show this to headquarters".^[82]

Shortly after, in July, the report was sent to an agent with expertise in criminal organizations and organized crime at the FBI's New York field office—essentially, the wrong person to handle a counterintelligence investigation.^[83][82] According to Nancy LeTourneau, political writer for the Washington Monthly, the report "was languishing in the FBI's New York field office" for two months, and "was finally sent to the counterintelligence team investigating Russia at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C." in mid-September 2016.^[84][85]: 897

In August 2016, the FBI asked Steele for "all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources".^[73][74] In October 2016, Steele "described the sources' access, but did not provide names" to the FBI.^[85]: 897 By August 22, 2017, Steele had provided them with the names of the sources for the allegations in the dossier.^[86]

Meanwhile, in the July to September time frame, according to The Washington Post, CIA Director John Brennan had started an investigation with a secret task force "composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI". At the same time, he was busy creating his own dossier of material documenting that "Russia was not only attempting to interfere in the 2016 election, they were doing so in order to elect Donald Trump. ... [T]he entire intelligence community was on alert about this situation at least two months before [the dossier] became part of the investigation." The "Steele dossier has so far proven to be fairly accurate", LeTourneau wrote.^[84]

In early August, which was after the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened,^[87] Steele was summoned to Rome where he gave a full briefing to four American FBI officials about the report.^[88][81] At that time, he handed over the June 20 and July 26 reports.^[87]

:{:{During its intense questioning of Steele, the FBI mentioned their own discoveries of connections between the Trump campaign and Russia^[88] and asked Steele about Papadopoulos, but he said he knew nothing about him.^[72] The agents "raised the prospect of paying Steele to continue gathering intelligence after Election Day",^[88] but Steele "ultimately never received payment from the FBI for any 'dossier'-related information".^[61] }:

In October 2022, during questioning from Special Counsel John Durham, Brian Auten, a supervisory counterintelligence analyst with the FBI, testified that, shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered Steele "up to $1 million" if he could corroborate allegations in the dossier, but that Steele could not do so.^[89][90] Steele has disputed this description: "And to correct the Danchenko trial record, we were not offered $1 million by the FBI to 'prove up' our Trump-Russia reporting. Rather, we were told there were substantial funds to resettle sources in the US if they were prepared to testify in public. Understandably they were not."^[91]}:

After public release

---

SEE TRAITOR BS 7 25

NY Times reported John Durham found the “Clinton Plan” emails were likely created by Russian spies. Right-wing media are running with them as legitimate.

Figures have suggested Clinton should be “behind bars,” argued the debunked scandal will “make Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket,” and likened it to a “soft coup attempt” and “treason”

Written by Noah Dowe, Pete Tsipis & Lis Power

:{Published 08/01/25

The right-wing media ecosystem has exploded with false claims about a newly-declassified annex to special counsel John Durham’s report on Russian collusion with Trump’s 2016 campaign. Right-wing media are claiming that the annex provides evidence of a “plot” by the Clinton campaign to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump. However, the newly-declassified assessment found that the documents in question were “not credible” and “likely made by Russian spies.”

Conservative media figures have ignored this assessment, instead calling for Hillary Clinton to be put “behind bars” for coordinating a “soft coup attempt.” And although they previously heralded Durham’s efforts, some in right-wing media are now arguing he “failed the American people.”

## Despite right-wing media claims, the declassified Durham annex found that the “Clinton Plan” emails “were likely made by Russian spies”

- On Thursday, the New York Post falsely claimed that newly declassified documents showed Clinton approved a plan to “smear” Trump with the Russia collusion narrative. The Post pointed to what it claimed are “explosive intelligence files declassified” this week, that purportedly show a “plot” in emails between Clinton’s campaign and allies to smear Trump with Russian collusion narratives. The evidence allegedly comes from Durham’s probe. New York Post, [7/31/25]

- In reality, the declassified documents show the opposite: the report’s conclusion was that the supposedly scandalous emails “were likely made by Russian spies.” Reporting from the New York Times noted that Durham’s assessment was that “a key piece of supposed evidence for the claim that Mrs. Clinton approved a plan to tie Mr. Trump to Russia is not credible” and was “probably manufactured.” Furthermore, Durham’s assessment was that the purported emails “were ultimately a composite of several emails that were obtained through Russian intelligence hacking of the U.S.-based think tanks.” New York Times, [7/31/25]

- The disclosure — which the Times called “the latest in a series of disclosures about the Russia inquiry, as the Trump team seeks to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein files” — follows weeks of outrage from some right-wing media over the administration’s handling of Epstein’s case. While some outlets have aided the administration’s attempt to deflect attention from Epstein, others, especially the hosts of online shows, have called the disclosures a “distraction” meant to make supporters “stop paying attention to Epstein.” Media Matters, [7/9/25, 7/23/25, 7/28/25, 7/30/25; New York Times, 7/31/25]

## Right-wing media are pushing debunked claims about the declassified annex

- Right-wing podcast host Megyn Kelly argued “Hillary Clinton should be behind bars, and so should the people who work for her who did this.” Referring to the alleged bombshell news, Kelly continued, “She wanted to distract from her email scandal. She cooked up a plan to accuse Trump of being a Russian agent in order to distract from her own legitimate scandal.” SiriusXM, *The Megyn Kelly Show*, [7/31/25]

- Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson suggested the annex “confirms Hillary Clinton personally approved the plot to frame Donald Trump with fake Russia collusion—despite intel proving it was false.” He added, “This was a coordinated criminal cover-up to protect Clinton and take down Trump. Christopher Wray must be investigated immediately.” Twitter/X, [7/31/25]

- Johnson: “It would hurt the feelings of this audience if nobody did anything on this.”YouTube, *The Benny Show*, [8/1/25]

- Fox contributor Byron York said the documents prove the “Clinton campaign played an important role in creating the whole Trump-Russia narrative” and suggested, “All those Republicans who think Soros is a big villain, well, they’ll be confirmed in this one.” Fox News, *Special Report with Bret Baier*, [7/31/25]

- Fox host Jesse Watters claimed “George Soros’ people worked with the DNC to roll out the hoax and the FBI was in on it the whole time.”Fox News, *Jesse Watters Primetime*, [7/31/25]

Citation

Fox News

- Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo claimed that the documents point “right, straight to Hillary Clinton as she was the key voice signing off on the entire Russiagate scheme” and pushed for punishment, saying, “The statute of limitations does not apply when it comes to conspiracies.” Fox Business Network, *Mornings with Maria*, [8/1/25]

Citation

Fox Business

- New York Post: “Read the documents that prove Hillary Clinton OK’d plan to ‘smear’ Trump with Russia collusion.”New York Post, [7/31/25]

- Fox legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said the documents “further implicate Barack Obama as deeply embedded in the hoax.”Fox News, *Hannity*, [7/31/25]

- OnThe Will Cain Show, OutKick’s Buck Sexton said the annex proved a “soft coup attempt.”Cain replied, “I don't think there's any words that would rise to the level of hyperbole. You couldn’t outdo yourself if you said soft coup or treason.” Fox News, *The Will Cain Show*, [7/31/25]

- Fox host Sean Hannity: “I've been saying that this is going to make Watergate look like a jaywalking ticket in the end, and I believe this smoking gun out today proves that comment to be correct.” On his radio show, Hannity continued, “What I believe we are looking at is probably what Chuck Grassley classified as the biggest political scandal in American history.” Premiere Radio Networks, *The Sean Hannity Show*, [7/31/25]

- National Review news writer James Lynch claimed Clinton “approved a plan devised by her campaign to falsely smear Donald Trump with claims of Russian collusion.” National Review, [7/31/25]

- Gateway Pundit: “Declassified Durham Appendix Shows Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY Approved Trump-Russia Hoax.” The Gateway Pundit, [7/31/25]

- The Federalist wrote, “Hillary Clinton approved the Russia collusion hoax but then lied to the FBI about her knowledge of the plot.”The Federalist, [7/31/25]

- Washington Examiner: “Declassified Durham annex reveals FBI ignored evidence of a Clinton plan to create Russia hoax.”The Washington Examiner, [7/31/25]

- Former Trump White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed, “The Clinton campaign in coordination with Team Soros weaponized US government law and intel agencies to manufacture a lie and media was complicit.” Twitter/X, [8/1/25]

- Fox & Friendsco-host Brian Kilmeade said the documents “appear to show that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to smear Trump in that summer prior to the RNC with the Russia collusion documents and brought Vladimir Putin along with her.”Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [8/1/25]

Citation

Fox News

- Infowars author Sean Miller claimed the annex revealed “a conspiracy between the Democrat National Committee [DNC], Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Barack Obama administration to formulate a fraudulent claim that then-candidate Donald Trump was a Russian asset.” Infowars, [7/31/25]

## Some in right-wing media attacked Durham, arguing he “failed the American people” with his initial report

- Blaze Media host Liz Wheeler: “How did John Durham miss all this evidence? Did he intentionally ‘miss’ it?” Twitter/X, [7/21/25]

- Right-wing commentator Bill Mitchell called Durham “the most useless special prosecutor in the history of Earth” and argued he intended to “kick the can down the road until they could install Biden and run this beyond the SOL.” Twitter/X, [7/27/25]

- Newsmax host Greg Kelly said Durham “failed the American people” because he was loyal to “the swamp.” Newsmax, *Greg Kelly Reports*, [7/31/25]

- Former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell said “Durham clearly did not do justice” to the case. Twitter/X, [7/31/25]

### Fox News has mentioned Obama over 3 times more than Epstein since Tulsi Gabbard released her report

07/23/25 4:07 PM EDT

### Fox News since Monday: 85 minutes talking about Sydney Sweeney, 3 minutes talking about Epstein

07/31/25 2:12 PM EDT

### Fox News has aired 168 segments about Tulsi Gabbard's revisionist claims regarding Russia, Obama, and the 2016 election

07/30/25

---

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dem-rep-jerry-nadler-tries-to-embarrass-john-durham

when Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee brought special counsel John Durham in for a hearing Wednesday, they thought it’d be an opportunity to tout Durham’s findings that the FBI should not have launched an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), however, took it as an opportunity to personally embarrass Durham.

Nadler specifically went after Durham’s limited credentials.

“You only filed three criminal cases. You only brought two cases to trial, correct?” Nadler asked Durham. Durham said that was correct.

“You lost all the cases you brought to trial, correct?” Nadler asked. Durham again said that was correct.

And then Nadler questioned the length and cost of the investigation, which Durham tried to defend. Ultimately Durham had to agree, however, that his investigation into the investigation took four years to complete.

The exchange was one of several tense interactions between Durham and Democrats Wednesday—with members like Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) insisting Durham is at risk of damaging his reputation, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) questioning the merits of the investigation, leading to some raised voices from around the room.

Durham’s exchange with Schiff led to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) banging his knuckles on the table across the room, mimicking a gavel.

At least one Democrat, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), also criticized Chairman Jim Jordan’s conduct during the hearing after Jordan mocked a line of questioning by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) about Durham’s conversations with Attorney General Bill Barr. During Nadler’s opening statement, the Ohio Republican could be seen shaking his head and lightly chuckling at the remarks.

Durham during the hearing toed the line of spicy responses and cordial conversation, occasionally objecting to more personal lines of attacks from Democrats. After Cohen insisted Durham was risking his reputation, Durham said he only cares about his reputation among people he respects, his family and his “lord,” which drew applause from Republicans around the room.

Durham previously spoke to members of the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. He’s broadly suggested enacting some reforms to the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Wednesday, he told members of the panel his recommendations were “not an easy fix.”

“It’s going to take time to rebuild the public’s confidence in the institution,” he said.

6 23

---

no lnx an 5 23

Bill Barr’s former special counsel John Durham to testify at House hearing

David Badash andThe New Civil Rights Movement May 26, 2023

Former Special Counsel John Durham, who recently ended his four-year investigation into the FBI’s decision to launch an investigation into Russia’s attack on the 2016 election and any possible connection Donald Trump or his campaign had to those efforts, will testify before the Republican-majority House Judiciary Committee next month.

The Durham report, widely-panned by legal experts but praised by GOP partisans, was the culmination of an investigation many believe was started to appease then-President Donald Trump. Trump Attorney General Bill Barr secretly elevated Durham to Special Counsel status in October of 2020, effectively to allow his investigation to continue regardless of the result of the following month’s presidential election.

Durham ended up indicting just three people. He lost two cases and the third pleaded guilty to a minor charge.

RELATED: ‘Circle of Garbage’: Experts Slam Durham ‘Wild Goose Chase’ as Investigation Into DOJ Trump-Russia Probe Ends With ‘Bupkis’

Washington Post columnist Philip Bump published an analysis earlier this month titled, “Durham’s probe ends as it began: Pointing at trees to obscure the forest.”

But Durham’s report gives fodder to the far-right.

National security and legal experts have torn the Durham report apart, with some noting his investigation directly conflicts with findings from a DOJ Inspector General and the then-GOP majority Senate Intelligence Committee’s report.

Fox News reports Durham “will testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee about his report in June, a source has told Fox News on Friday.”

“The hearing will happen on Wednesday, June 21,” Fox adds. “The day before, Durham will appear before the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door briefing.”

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'Unseemly whining': Legal experts rebuke John Durham’s criticism of juries ›

Mueller prosecutor asks why John Durham spent $200K on travel in six months ›

Durham investigation goes bust: Why Bill Barr blew up his personal project to expose the deep state ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

The stunning hypocrisy of special counsel John Durham's inquiry ... ›

Barr Pressed Durham to Find Flaws in the Trump-Russia ... ›

John Durham probe failure belongs to Barr — and Trump ›

---

durham? found russians had try to help trump win and that he/the campaign welcomed the help?!

https://www.alternet.org/unseemly-whining-john-durham-juries/

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/durham-report-and-inevitable-end-foxs-anti-mueller-farce

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-host-jesse-watters-calls-durham-report-joke

https://www.mediamatters.org/cnn/right-wing-media-are-praising-cnns-misleading-coverage-durham-report

---

https://www.alternet.org/mueller-prosecutor-asks-why-john-durham-spent-200k-on-travel-in-six-months-2659625951/

---

an 223

One of the most mysterious chapters of former Attorney General Bill Barr's tenure at the Department of Justice got a little sunlight last week when the New York Times published a deeply reported piece on the Durham Investigation, Donald Trump's "investigation of the Mueller investigation." We knew that Special Counsel John Durham, a man whose reputation was one of seriousness and rectitude, had only brought two prosecutions but failed to win convictions in both. And we knew that there had been turmoil in his office with several people resigning at what seemed to be pivotal moments in the case. But, until now, we didn't know the details — and they are explosive.

The Times story, reportedby Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner,essentially reveals that the investigation which was supposed to blow the lid off of the Russia investigation by proving that it was a "partisan witch hunt," was itself a witch hunt — only on behalf of Trump. Barr was enabling and covering for Trump throughout his tenure as we saw with his preemptive press conference to diminish the Mueller Report and mislead the public as to its conclusions and his willingness to back Trump's strategy to discredit Vote-By Mail during the 2020 campaign. Even when he finally deserted the sinking ship in December of 2020, his letter of resignation showered Trump with praise even as he knew he was plotting to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. But the Durham investigation was his personal project and it turns out that it was a monstrous abuse of power.

The whole point of naming a Special Counsel is to remove the taint of political interference by keeping a distance between the politically appointed Attorney General and the investigation. Barr did not do that. In fact, he directly participated in the probe by traveling overseas to the United Kingdom and Italy with Durham to interrogate their intelligence officials about whether they helped American investigators frame Trump which apparently offended them to no end since they did nothing of the sort. Durham and Barr became bosom buddies, throwing back scotch together at the end of the work day and having dinner on a regular basis. And Barr, who was convinced that the CIA had created the whole "Russia hoax," eagerly ran interference with the Intelligence agencies for him as needed. Evidently, Durham was very taken with Barr and agreed from the get-go that Trump had been set up.

We had previously heard that Barr and Durham went to Italy on some sort of Hardy Boys expedition, but now we learn that they had been told by Italian authorities about some very credible information that Trump had committed serious financial crimes. Barr and Durham realized that it wasn't something they could completely ignore (as much as they probably wanted to) so Barr assigned that case to Durham instead of another prosecutor and opened a criminal investigation. This was then leaked to the public in a way that implied they had found evidence of criminal behavior on the part of the FBI, the intelligence agencies or possibly even Hillary Clinton. They certainly didn't let on that they were investigating Trump.

From what we know, Durham quietly closed that "investigation" without much fuss. Considering the rest of their behavior one can't help but suspect that he and Barr either didn't look too closely or decided that revealing Trump's crimes wasn't worth jeopardizing their crusade to expose the "deep state."

This is stunningly unethical behavior by an Attorney General. But we shouldn't be too surprised. After all, Barr got the job in the first place by sending an unsolicited letter to Trump in which he criticized the Mueller investigation by claiming that a president can't obstruct justice. In fact, Barr pretty clearly believes former president Richard Nixon's famous line "when a president does it it's not illegal" since his view, accordingto legal expert Marty Lederman, was that "the president has absolute constitutional authority over actions by executive branch officers in carrying out law enforcement powers given to them by Congress." If you ever wondered where Trump got the idea that the Constitution gave him the power to "do whatever I want," look no further than Bill Barr.

He and Durham colluded together for months and came up with zilch. There simply was no evidence that the FBI, DOJ, CIA or the Mueller team had done anything untoward. But that didn't stop Durham. He decided to focus on Trump's bête noire Hillary Clinton and he brought a couple of cases designed to show that she set Trump up with bogus claims of Russian collusion. That blew up in his face too. He's still in business today doing what we don't know, yet Attorney General Merrick Garland doesn't seem to be willing to pull the plug.

As a New York Times op-ed by David Firestone points out, this exposè pretty much destroys Barr's attempt to rehabilitate himself with the public. He famously dissed Trump repeatedly in his January 6 Committee testimony andwrote a book in which he turns on his former boss, calling him "detached from reality" and urging Republicans not to nominate him for the presidency in 2024. But he narrows his criticism to the post-election period conveniently forgetting the previous four years of incompetence, corruption and mental instability which Barr encouraged. It's a little too little and way too late.

Unfortunately, while Barr's lame attempt at rehabilitation may have finally been put on ice by these latest revelations, the conspiracy theories that fueled it have not. As Firestone notes:

Republicans in the House are launching a new snipe hunt for proof that these same government offices were "weaponized" against conservatives, an expedition that is likely to be no more effective than Mr. Durham's and Mr. Barr's.

In fact, now that I think about it, this might be the one thing that will make Bill Barr and John Durham look good by comparison. These House extremists will air every half baked, fever dream of twitter randos and QAnon weirdos in public hearings and present them as facts. At least Barr and Durham mostly kept their conspiracy theories to themselves over scotch and prime rib. That's about the best you can say for them

---

an 1 23

For months, Fox News and other right-wing media outlets relentlessly hyped former special counselJohn Durham’s probe of the Russia investigation. Durham, appointed by former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, conducted what was essentially an investigation of an investigation. And Fox News pundits, along with former President Donald Trump, predicted that the probe would be seriously damaging to prominent Democrats.

But when Durham finally delivered his final report for the probe, it was hardly the total annihilation of Democrats that Fox News hosts were expecting. Liberal pundits on MSNBC were quick to describe Durham’s findings as mostly a “nothingburger.” And according to reporting in the**New York Times, Durham’s investigation included some questionable Russian sources.

Rolling Stone’s Nikki McCann Ramirez describes those Russian sources as “sketchy,” and she argues that House Republicans will probably “ignore” Durham’s probe when they conduct their new select committee on the “weaponization of the federal government.”

Ramirez explains, “Earlier this month, Kevin McCarthy announced the creation of a new ‘weaponization of the federal government’ select committee aimed at investigating overreach by the Justice Department. One case that House Republicans are likely to ignore is special counsel John Durham’s probe into the Russia investigation, despite the New York Times reporting on Thursday, (January 26) that Durham and former Attorney General Bill Barr, who appointed him, may have abused their investigative powers in a litany of ways, including by using sketchy Russian intelligence to gain access to the e-mails of an aide to Hungarian billionaire George Soros, a frequent target of right-wing conspiracies.”

The Rolling Stone journalist points out that according to the New York Times’ reporting, Durham “seized on dubious Russian intelligence memos in order to target Leonard Benardo, the executive vice president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations.”

“According to interviews conducted by the Times,” Ramirez observes, "despite significant factual inconsistencies in the memos being raised by investigators, the special counsel reportedly went to great lengths to obtain information on the contents of Benardo’s e-mails. When a judge struck down a request from his office to access the information, citing a lack of evidence compelling enough to overwrite privacy laws, Durham reportedly attempted to circumvent her decision through a grand jury. While the Times was unable to ascertain if Benardo was subpoenaed by Durham, he did voluntarily provide the special counsel with the requested information.”

Ramirez describes Durham’s investigation as “primarily a giant waste of time and resources.”

“It’s the exact type of partisan witch hunt one might think a House committee on the ‘weaponization of the federal government’ might want to investigate, but Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who will run the subcommittee, is unlikely to bring it to the table,” Ramirez writes. “Jordan, a devout Trump loyalist, repeatedly lauded the Durham investigation, and publicly affirmed his belief that the probe would result in criminal penalties for those under Barr and Durham’s scrutiny.”

Read Rolling Stone’s full article at this link.

---

1 23 badash

Legal experts are now weighing in on Thursday’s bombshell, massive and months-long reporting from The New York Times that reveals, among several previously unknown allegations, that then-Attorney General Bill Barr and his special counsel, John Durham were handed apparent evidence of suspicious financial acts by Donald Trump, and proceeded to create a false public narrative that Durham’s investigation found evidence of “suspicious financial dealings” related to Trump, suggesting it was on the part of the FBI, not the president, in order to protect the president.

“On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe,” The Times reveals, “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.”

The Times adds that “Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump.”

“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.”

Until now.

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert who literally wrote the book on the U.S. Constitution, calls the Times’ report “jaw-dropping.”

“When Durham unexpectedly found evidence of crimes committed BY rather than AGAINST Trump, he and Barr deliberately deceived the nation into thinking the opposite! This deep dive by the NYT is as jaw-dropping as anything I’ve read in the past decade,” Tribe says.

Law professor and former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Sherrilyn Ifill, one of TIME’s 2021 most influential people in the world, accused Barr of “gaslighting” the public.

“Every line of this article must be read,” Ifill implored. “Horrifying breaches of professional ethics, misuse of DOJ investigative resources, and deliberate lies to, and gaslighting of the public. A grotesque perversion of the appropriate role of Attorney General.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal contributor and professor of law, also calls it “jaw dropping.”

“Jaw dropping reporting. Lots here including an explanation of why Durham’s colleague resigned: under pressure from Barr to release an ‘interim’ report damaging Clinton & the FBI as the election drew near, Durham had a draft prepared that wasn’t factual,” she says.

Andrew Weissman, the former General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who spent 20 years at DOJ, including working under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, calls Barr “corrupt.”

“Can anyone really be surprised by this?” he asks. “Barr was just so corrupt and so corrupted the DOJ.”

MSNBC legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor and the first woman to serve as US General Counsel of the Army was troubled by the picture The Times painted of how close Barr and Durham were, when special counsels are supposed to have great autonomy and not be shaded by any Attorney General interference.

“Even more troubling than Barr and Durham frequently having drinks and discussing the investigation is the fact that the only crime they discovered on their foreign trip was Italian intel about crimes by Trump,” she says via Twitter. “I want to know the status of that investigation!”

Some legal experts lament that despite the bombshells in The Times’ report, it appears nothing will come of it – certainly nothing from the House Republicans.

Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin sardonically asks, “Surely McCarthy and Jim Jordan’s new Select Committee on ‘the Weaponization of the Federal Government’ will focus on this story and the actions of Bill Barr, John Durham and Donald Trump. Surely, right? Right?”

Wine-Banks also points to House Republicans’ new committee investigating what they claim is “weaponization” of the federal government.

“Barr’s relationship with Durham, his pressure on him to reach a certain result and their failure to follow up on Trump’s crime revealed during the investigation is what weaponization of the DOJ looks like — not what Republicans want to investigate now.”

Pete Strzok, who spent 26 years at the FBI including as Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, and led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States election, speaks from experience.

“I can see Barr allowing the stunning amount of craziness (a gentle choice of word) described in this article,” he writes. “But does anyone in the current OAG or ODAG care about this? Durham has reported to AG Garland for twenty two (22) months now.”

“This,” Weissman adds separately, pointing to The Times article, “is all about the Trump weaponization of the DOJ – but we know that the House Rs won’t give a damn about it.”

---

poster boy for new benghazi comm fail

https://www.alternet.org/john-durham-2659316691/

Since 1977 John Durham has been a government prosecutor, first at the state level and five years later, at the federal level. Over the course of his 45 years he handled some of the most notable investigations in American politics, often examining the inner workings of the DOJ, often at the direction of the Attorney General.

And now the 72-year old Republican, likely nearing the end of his award-winning career, is facing legal experts calling for an ethics investigation into his three-year long criminal review into the origins of the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” counterintelligence investigation into links between Russia and Donald Trump and the Trump campaign.

After Monday’s acquittal of important FBI source Igor Danchenko, who Durham had prosecuted for allegedly lying to federal agents, the longtime prosecutor scored his second loss in court. Now experts believe the review was not only a politically-motivated witch hunt created by then-Attorney General Bill Barr to soothe Donald Trump’s ego, but has cost DOJ valuable resources, assets, and credibility.

“The Bill Barr-orchestrated John Durham ‘investigation of the investigators’ failed (again) today. It’s time to put this actual witch hunt to bed,” said former federal prosecutor of 30 years, Glenn Kirschner, on Tuesday.

“So friends,” Kirschner adds via, “with today’s verdict in a federal courtroom in Virginia we may have found an actual witch hunt.”

“The Bill Barr-orchestrated investigation of the people who investigated Donald Trump’s crimes and collusion with Russia has failed spectacularly.”

“Bill Barr appointed this guy, John Durham,” Kirschner explained, “to investigate the investigators who were investigating Trump’s crimes. If that doesn’t sound like a corrupt Attorney General, protecting a criminal president, I don’t know what does.”

Noted and award-winning Harvard Law professor (retired) and co-founder of the American Constitution Society, Laurence Tribe, blasted Barr’s hand-picked special counsel.

“One more formerly reputable lawyer bites the dust on a mission for Trump,” Tribe tweeted.

“Durham must be put through a rigorous ethics probe. Having been given his thankless task by Bill Barr is no excuse for pursuing phantoms and shadows to exact partisan revenge,” he added, in response to a tweet from former top DOJ official Andrew Weissman.

Weissman had said: “Durham was not candid when he told the Virginia jury that Mueller found no evidence of collusion. And he charged an alleged false statement that the court found was actually true. Based on the govt’ s own witnesses. How is Durham not subject to an ethics probe?”

“I reiterate,” says former Asst. U.S. Attorney at SDNY, Richard Signorelli. “John Durham has inexplicably destroyed a once stellar reputation in service to Trump/Barr. This will be his legacy.”

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti observes, “Many federal prosecutors have lost fewer trials in their entire career than John Durham lost in the past year alone. It is apparent that his judgment is poor and that he overcharged these cases. His use of the legally meaningless ‘no collusion’ phrase at trial betrays his bias.”

Peter Strzok, the now-former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, pointed to a New York Times article from last week detailing the case.

An FBI agent, The Times reported, “denounced the exposure by the Trump Justice Department of Igor Danchenko, who was an F.B.I. informant but is now on trial on charges of lying to investigators.”

“This doesn’t just hurt the exposed source,” Strzok lamented. “It hurts the ability of the FBI to recruit sources far into the future, especially those related to Russia. That of course was the point. Shame on Bill Barr. Shame on FBI leadership for sacrificing sources for political survival.”

---

OMG

an badash 1 23

Special counsel Robert Durham, appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, uncovered possible financial crimes by Donald Trump but made no attempt to prosecute them, The New York Times reveals in massive, bombshell report published Thursday after a months-long investigation.

“Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump. The specifics of the tip and how they handled the investigation remain unclear, but Mr. Durham brought no charges over it,” The Times’ Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner report.

The “potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes” came during a trip Barr and Durham, his special counsel, took together. They “decided that the tip was too serious and credible to ignore.”

But, “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.”

That’s just one aspect of The Times’ extensive and disturbing report.

It also reveals that there was little justification for Barr to install Durham as a special counsel to investigate what Trump wrongly maintained was an unjustifiable investigation into his ties to Russia.

In fact, The Times “found that the main thrust of the Durham inquiry was marked by some of the very same flaws — including a strained justification for opening it and its role in fueling partisan conspiracy theories that would never be charged in court — that Trump allies claim characterized the Russia investigation.”

In another shocking revelation, The Times reports Durham “used Russian intelligence memos — suspected by other U.S. officials of containing disinformation — to gain access to emails of an aide toGeorge Soros, the financier and philanthropist who is a favorite target of the American right and Russian state media.”

The Times does not explain how Durham obtained the Russian disinformation.

“Mr. Durham used grand jury powers to keep pursuing the emails even after a judge twice rejected his request for access to them. The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued.”

Attorneys on Durham’s team apparently had significant qualms with his actions, leading at least two to resign.

“There were deeper internal fractures on the Durham team than previously known,” The Times reports. “The publicly unexplained resignation in 2020 of his No. 2 and longtime aide, Nora R. Dannehy, was the culmination of a series of disputes between them over prosecutorial ethics. A year later, two more prosecutors strongly objected to plans to indict a lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign based on evidence they warned was too flimsy, and one left the team in protest of Mr. Durham’s decision to proceed anyway. (A jury swiftly acquitted the lawyer.)”

BARR THREATENED NSA

The Times also reports that Attorney General Barr bought into Trump’s false claims that there had been “no collusion” between the Trump camp and Russia.

Importantly,The Times states point-blank that the Mueller Report “detailed ‘numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign,’ and it established both how Moscow had worked to help Mr. Trump win and how his campaign had expected to benefit from the foreign interference.”

According to The Times’ account, “soon after giving Mr. Durham his assignment,” in May of 2019, “Mr. Barr summoned the head of the National Security Agency, Paul M. Nakasone, to his office. In front of several aides, Mr. Barr demanded that the N.S.A. cooperate with the Durham inquiry.”

The NSA is a wholly separate entity from the Dept. of Justice. It is an agency under the Dept. of Defense and reports to the powerful Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Barr apparently did not care, and, “repeating a sexual vulgarity, he warned that if the N.S.A. wronged him by not doing all it could to help Mr. Durham, Mr. Barr would do the same to the agency.”

DURHAM TRIED TO SCUTTLE A REPORT’S FINDING THAT TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS WARRANTED

“Mr. Durham’s team spent long hours combing the C.I.A.’s files but found no way to support the allegation” that the investigation into Trump and Russia was the result of some anti-Trump deep state operation.

Barr and Durham actually “traveled abroad together to press British and Italian officials to reveal everything their agencies had gleaned about the Trump campaign and relayed to the United States, but both allied governments denied they had done any such thing. Top British intelligence officials expressed indignation to their U.S. counterparts about the accusation, three former U.S. officials said.”

The Dept. of Justice’s Inspector General’s investigation found there was, in fact, sufficient cause for the DOJ to have opened up the Trump-Russia investigation, contrary to Barr’s personal beliefs.

So he tried to have that finding removed from the final report.

The Times reports that “the broader findings contradicted Mr. Trump’s accusations and the rationale for Mr. Durham’s inquiry,” which should have shut down what ultimately became Durham’s four-year long investigation that netted almost nothing.

The DOJ Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, “found no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. And he concluded that the investigation’s basis — an Australian diplomat’s tip that aTrump campaign adviser had seemed to disclose advance knowledge that Russia would release hacked Democratic emails — had been sufficient to lawfully open it.”

So Barr tried to discredit Horowitz’s report.

“Minutes before the inspector general’s report went online, Mr. Barr issued a statement contradicting Mr. Horowitz’s major finding, declaring that the F.B.I. opened the investigation “on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient.” He would later tell Fox News that the investigation began “without any basis,” as if the diplomat’s tip never happened.”

Read the entire Times report here.

---

sussman acquitted; 3 yrs vs 2 yrs mueller russiagate legit invest that ended in guilty pleas/convict.

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/legal-experts-clown-show-prosecution/

---

2nd fail

"actual witch hunt': Legal experts demand ethics probe into Bill Barr's Special Counsel John Durham

David Badash The New Civil Rights Movement

October 19, 2022

---

fired by biden? why not? see sussman spygate 2 BS

---

an 9 22

In 2019, when Donald Trump was still president, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) assigned John H. Durham to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia. Durham’s probe — an investigation of an investigation — appears to be winding down after three years. And according to New York Times reporters Katie Benner, Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage, it has yet to deliver “anything close to the results Mr. Trump was seeking.”

In an article published on September 14, the Times journalists report, “The grand jury that Mr. Durham has recently used to hear evidence has expired, and while he could convene another, there are currently no plans to do so, three people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Durham and his team are working to complete a final report by the end of the year, they said, and one of the lead prosecutors on his team is leaving for a job with a prominent law firm.”

Benner, Goldman and Savage add, “Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the FBI in relation to outside efforts to investigate purported Trump-Russia ties, but he has not charged any conspiracy or put any high-level officials on trial. The recent developments suggest that the chances of any more indictments are remote. After Mr. Durham’s team completes its report, it will be up to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to decide whether to make its findings public.”

When Durham’s probe was launched in 2019, Trump and his MAGA allies were hoping that it would reveal evidence of a sinister “Deep State” plot on the part of the Barack Obama-era DOJ officials who were still in charge during 2016’s presidential election. Trump supporters at Fox News and Fox Business reported on the probe with great excitement and anticipation. But Durham’s probe, after three years, hasn’t produced anything like that, according to the Times.

Benner, Goldman and Savage explain, “Mr. Durham and his team used a grand jury in Washington to indict Michael Sussmann, a prominent cybersecurity lawyer with ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Sussmann was indicted last year on a charge of making a false statement to the FBI at a meeting in which he shared a tip about potential connections between computers associated with Mr. Trump and a Kremlin-linked Russian bank. Mr. Sussmann was acquitted of that charge at trial in May.”

In another case, the reporters note, “Mr. Durham’s team negotiated a plea deal with an FBI lawyer whom an inspector general had accused of doctoring an e-mail used in preparation for a wiretap renewal application. The plea deal resulted in no prison time.”

“Mr. Trump and his allies have long hoped that Mr. Durham would prosecute former FBI and intelligence officials responsible for the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane,” Benner, Goldman and Savage observe. “Mr. Trump has described the investigation as a witch hunt and accused the FBI of spying on his presidential campaign. Last month, in the days after the FBI obtained a search warrant to seize boxes of classified and other government documents he was keeping at his resort in Florida, Mr. Trump used social media to amplify the unsubstantiated idea that Mr. Durham had uncovered a vast political conspiracy by the Obama Administration and the intelligence community to damage him.”

---

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/06/how-john-durhams-probe-has-exposed-trumps-russia-con/

no lnx

How John Durham’s Probe Has Exposed Trump’s Russia Con

His three-year investigation has so far shown the only hoax was orchestrated by the former president.

DAVID CORN

Washington, DC, Bureau Chief

Special counsel John Durham leaves federal court in Washington last month.Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Donald Trump has bad timing. On Friday, he sent a letter to the Pulitzer Prize Board reiterating his demand that it rescind the awards given to the New York Times and the Washington Post in 2018 for their coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal. (That’s not what he called it.) He based this request on the prosecution of Democratic lawyer Michael Sussmann, who was indicted by special counsel John Durham for allegedly lying to the FBI during a September 2016 meeting when he shared with the bureau computer data research that suggested there might be a connection between a Trump-related business and Alfa Bank, a large Russian financial entity. Trump claimed the Sussmann case showed the “Russia hoax was a dirty campaign trick promulgated by Crooked Hillary Clinton and her associates.” Five days later, the jury, after only several hours of deliberation, acquitted Sussmann. Oops.

The quick not-guilty verdict was a sharp slap at Durham’s three-year-long investigation, which was launched by William Barr, when he was Trump’s loyalist attorney general, and which has come across as a political crusade mounted to undermine the various Trump-Russia investigations. Durham was tasked by Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI’s probe of the Russian attack on the 2016 election (which, according to multiple investigations, was waged to help Trump win) and the interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives. Put simply, Durham’s job was to find that Trump had been set up by the bureau. When the Justice Department inspector general in late 2019 issued a report concluding the FBI had legitimate cause to investigate the Russian assault and the Trump campaign, Durham, in an unusual move, released a statement declaring, “we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.” A-ha, Trumpists exclaimed. Durham was on track to reveal that the FBI investigation was bogus from the get-go and Trump was right: It was all a hoax and a witch hunt.

Yet after years of toil, Durham has produced nothing to suggest the Russia investigation was a Deep State hit-job against Trump. He has brought three cases that have nothing to do with the origins of the investigation. One involved an FBI lawyer who altered an email used to obtain a search warrant after the investigation was started. (The attorney pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year of probation.)

Another led to the indictment of Igor Danchenko, a source for the so-called Steele dossier, for allegedly lying to the FBI about his sources. His trial is scheduled to begin in October. This prosecution, too, has nothing to do with the origin or legitimacy of the FBI’s investigation, which was not triggered by the Steele reports. The third was the Sussmann case that just exploded in Durham’s face. It, too, was essentially unconnected to the FBI’s core investigation, given that the meeting in question happened months after the bureau began examining the Russian assault and that the FBI quickly dismissed the Trump-Alfa Bank tie.

Despite declaring over two years ago that he had reason to question the FBI’s opening of the Russia investigation, Durham has failed to make good on his assertion. His investigation has yielded zilch in this regard. His prosecutions are all sideshows.

But Durham has done Trump and his cultists a great favor by providing material they can exploit for one of their favorite pastimes: deflection.

For over five years, Trump and his minions have endeavored to beat back the Trump-Russia scandal with denial and distraction. They have done all they could to change the subject from the basics of the affair: the Kremlin attacked the 2016 election to help Trump; while this assault was underway, the Trump camp had troubling interactions with Russian operatives and was told the Kremlin intended to covertly assist Trump; Trump hid from the public his effort to land a major development deal in Moscow (for which he sought help from Vladimir Putin); the Trump campaign aided and abetted the Russian attack by denying and/or downplaying it; and, as president, Trump tried to impede the investigation. All of these are confirmed facts that make a damning case that Trump committed a grand act of betrayal to become president. Trump and his defenders, though, have tried to change the subject: the problematic Steele dossier, an improperly obtained search warrant, baseless conspiracy theories about the Democratic Party’s computer servers being whisked away to Ukraine, and, most recently, the Sussmann meeting.

Look at Trump’s letter to the Pulitzer board. It dwells on details that came out during the Sussmann trial about the Clinton campaign promoting the Alfa Bank allegation. This case, Trump claims, shows that Clintonites were trying to spread opposition research about him, particularly iffy data about a purported computer server tie between his business and Alfa Bank. He declares he was the victim of “shameful smears” from the Clinton campaign—and these covert attacks were the basis for the FBI investigation. The Clinton crew, of course, was trying to disseminate negative information about Trump—especially worrisome material about a possible Trump-Russia connection. But this had nothing to do with the investigation already begun by the FBI, which was launched independently of the Clinton effort.

Trump writes, “I again call on you to rescind the Prize you awarded based on blatantly fake, derogatory and defamatory news. If you choose not to do so, we will see you in court.” Putting aside whether Trump can sue a journalism awards committee for content it honors, he is yet again engaging in deflection. Nothing in the Sussmann case undercuts the investigations or the reporting related to the central elements of the scandal. Trump is trying to turn the thin gruel Durham has served up into a feast.

In the reality-based world, Durham actually has undermined Trump and his bogus narrative. He has failed to demonstrate that the Russia investigation was a witch hunt or hoax cooked up by Trump’s enemies. His small-beer cases do not challenge any of the main findings of the investigations, which justifiably taint Trump’s 2016 victory and presidency. Durham’s work (so far) shows that Trump’s attempts to distract from the scandal have been nothing but a big con. Trump shrieks about Sussmann, the Steele dossier, and other matters so the public doesn’t see what’s clearly there: a record of misdeeds, lies, and treachery. In a way, Durham has provided a valuable service. His inability to uncover evidence of a hoax confirms that Trump’s denials and diversions have been the real hoax all along.

---

see spygate sussman

https://www.mediamatters.org/joe-rogan-experience/spotifys-joe-rogan-lies-durham-filing-shows-clinton-campaign-planted-evidence

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/durham-2656754665/

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/durham/ dismisses consp

hannity on defam suit: bring it on

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/sean-hannity-on-hillary-clinton/

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/fox-news-hillary-clinton/

played sp many x but cut coup plot

---

djt word salad

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/trump-2656686160/

badash ncrm an

In an “exclusive” Fox News interview Donald Trump, the failed, disgraced, one-term twice impeachedformer president, suggests he’s read the legal filing from John Durham,a special counsel secretly installed in 2020 by then-Attorney General Bill Barr, who revealed the attorney’s status weeks before resigning from office, just before the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Trump referred to him as “Robert Durham”in a statement when the news of the filing broke, and now is suggesting that he has both read the legal filing and predicted its contents “a long time ago.”

The problem is Fox News and many other far-right-wing media outlets, have gotten it wrong, mostly wrong, or all wrong.

“Fox News inaccurately declared that Mr. Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had paid a technology company to ‘infiltrate’ a White House server,” The New York Times reported Monday. “The Washington Examiner claimed that this all meant there had been spying on Mr. Trump’s White House office.”

On Tuesday Trump told Fox News: “It looks like this is just the beginning, because, if you read the filing and have any understanding of what took place, and I called this a long time ago, you’re going to see a lot of other things happening,having to do with what, really, just is a continuation of the crime of the century.”

“This is such a big event, nobody’s seen anything like this.”

Because it didn’t happen, at least, not as Trump and his right-wing smokescreen allies claim.

“Who would think a thing like this is even possible?” Trump also told Fox News. “Durham is also coming up withthings far bigger than anybody thought possible—Nobody ever thought a thinglike this would be even discussed, let alone an act like this committed.”

“You have experts that do this, but they used experts to do it, and to think they could even think about doing that is not believable and, think—if they do it, foreign countries can do it,” Trump said.

“It is no different than Watergate, except a much more important location,” Trump said. “It is the same theft—just modern day.”

And the “best” lines from his interview: “This is treason at the highest level,” and, “It is not even believable.”

---

devin nunes he bailed to run trump media?

scaryMSN news no warning gives: [then at end rolls to brian kileade asks us to click on something to join?]

6 min interview with fmr ca congressman" not 1st time; ran confid hu sources; infiltrate, FISA warrant; russia hoaxers, crickets in mainstream press; cites andrrew c mccarthy; mueller: trump framed; cognitive issues; clinton campaIGN OPERATIVES AND dirty cops [steel?]; doing it by the bk, zero leaks, complete opposite [bizzarroworld inversion?]; fmr intelligence chair; ratcliffe pushed russia colusion docs to durham, says docs kept from congress

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/brexit/hillary-clinton-dodges-questions-on-durham-probe-developments/vi-AATWsl8

Trump Media & Technology Group CEO Devin Nunes on the Durham probe into individuals connected to the Clinton campaign.

newly unearthed emails undercut a key argument in an indictment from Bill Barr's appointed prosecutor: NYT

Brad Reed Raw Story

September 30, 2021

Emails unearthed by the New York Times undercut a key allegation made by John Durham, the prosecutor appointed by former Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the FBI's 2016 probe of the Trump....

---

321 just wondering what pension plan (rich husb)

no lnx twt

Ex-Trump attorney furious DOJ investigating Matt Gaetz but not Hunter Biden

Screengrab.

David Badash and The New Civil Rights Movement March 31, 2021

Former Trump campaign and personal attorney Jenna Ellis is furious about the Dept. of Justice's investigation into Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) for possible sex trafficking of an underaged girl, demanding to know why Hunter Biden has not been charged with wrongdoing – while just hours later lamenting the death of the "presumption of innocence."

"Okay so wait," Ellis, who professes to be a "Constitutional Law Attorney," said on Twitter, "the DOJ has time to investigate Matt Gaetz, but the whole Hunter Biden situation is just fine now??And where's Durham??? This is why the American people are so over all of it."

"Durham" is now-former U.S. Attorney John Durham, who former Attorney General Bill Barr set up as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the FBI's Russia probe. So far, after two years, he reportedly has found no problems with the FBI's decision to investigate Trump and the Trump campaign for possible Russia ties.

It's unclear who Ellis is referring to when lamenting that "the American people are so over all of it," given that it appears Hunter Biden's actions do not warrant prosecution, but she also went on to lament, ironically, the death of the "presumption of innocence," just seven hours later:

[some crack about twitter annd PC]

Ellis, a devout Christian who has suggested the left is trying to "cancel Christianity," has compared same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality and supports criminalizing homosexuality.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Trump attorney spirals out in unhinged CNN rant claiming Trump is ... ›

MAGA attorney: Trump-appointed judge who ruled against ... ›

A review of Jenna Ellis' professional history shows she is not the ... ›

The Trumpist defense of Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn is a retired general who served as Trump’s national security adviser during the 2016 presidential campaign, the transition, and the early days of his White House tenure. At various points during that timeline, Flynn was also assigned by Trump to find the Hillary Clinton emails he had publicly asked Russia to procure; was under investigation by the FBI, which was concerned with whether he was serving as a witting or unwitting agent of the Russian government; was illegally acting as an unregistered agent of the Turkish government, for which he was reportedly involved in discussions of a kidnapping plot; and was seeking Trump’s approval for a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia after working as a paid adviser for the group behind the proposal.

On December 29, 2016, the day the Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia in response to its interference in the presidential election, Flynn called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and urged him that Russia not retaliate for those sanctions. Flynn was fired as Trump’s national security adviser after reports surfaced that he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about those conversations, which opened Flynn up to blackmail from the Russian government. He would later repeatedly plead guilty as part of Mueller’s probe to lying to the FBI about those calls before renouncing that plea last year.

The position on Flynn among Trumpists like Fox host Sean Hannity is that he is an American hero, [started w/ ollie?]that there was no good-faith reason to probe any of his actions during that period, and that anyone involved in such an effort was a participant in the broad-ranging Obama administration conspiracy to take down Trump, which the president terms “OBAMAGATE.” [RECALL EACH TIME HE WRIGGLES OUT OF A LEGIT CHARGE, HE DECLARES HIS RIGHEOUSNESS/VICTIMHOOD, ASCRIBING EACH TO INCREASING DESPERATION BY DEMS, THEY TRIED TO IMPEACH ME ON DAY 1...]

Their argument features Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak in two ways: They argue that the FBI’s interview with Flynn was a nefarious “setup” and suggest that the leak about the conversation from a “senior government official” to The Washington Post’s David Ignatius for his 2017 column, which brought the call into public light, was anillegal attempt to take down Flynn and Trump by someone who had improperly “unmasked” his identity from intelligence intercepts.

William Barr’s Justice Department showed last week that the Trump administration is putting the force of the federal government behind Fox’s conspiracy theories when it filed a dubious and virtually unprecedented motion seeking to drop the government’s case against Flynn,[THIS SORT OF SUCCEEDED 7/20, STILL BEING FOUGHT IN CT?] citing the FBI’s interview tactics. And on Wednesday, Grenell tried to use his own power as the director of national intelligence to provide grist in support of the other fork of the Flynn defense.

“Unmasking” and what Grenell’s document shows

On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Grenell had declassified [VS POMPEO IG REPORT IS CLASSIFIED?!]and provided to the Justice Department what the paper described as “an Obama-era document related to President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn” and “a list of Obama administration officials who sought to learn the identities of Trump associates swept up in surveillance of foreign officials.” Later that day, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson sent a letter to Grenell and Barr asking for the document. Grenell provided it to the senators on Wednesday, and it was immediately leaked to CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, a former Fox reporter whose work often promotes Republican talking points. Herridge then published the letter on Twitter. (The document did not turn out to be precisely what the Times had reported. It had been generated on May 4, not during the “Obama era,” and dealt solely with cases involving Flynn, not “Trump associates” more generally.)

In NSA reports derived from the legal surveillance [FISA FBI SCREWUP LATER FOUND?] of foreign targets, analysts anonymize (“mask”) the names of U.S. persons to protect their privacy. It is routine for senior officials to ask the NSA to reveal (“unmask”) those identities in cases where they believe that information is necessary to understand the intelligence. The NSA has a standard procedure for doing this, including a review of the justification of the person seeking the unmasking. For context, Trump administration officials sought and received the unmasking of U.S. persons from the NSA more than 10,000 times in 2019 and nearly 17,000 times in 2018.

The document is a list created at Grenell’s request of several dozen “officials who submitted requests” to the NSA between Trump’s election and the end of January 2017 to unmask an identity which turned out to be Flynn, as detailed in an attached memorandum to Grenell from NSA Director Paul Nakasone. It provides the names of the officials, which include then-Vice President Biden, Cabinet secretaries, and intelligence agency leaders, and the date on which their requests were processed. It is the second version of the document -- as Nakasone detailed, the list was originally provided in alphabetical order but revised to be chronological.

That’s it.

Contrary to the insinuations from the right-wing figures, the document provides no evidence that any single unmasking was related to Flynn’s calls with Kislyak. In fact, the record suggests none of them were the original unmasking that first discovered Flynn had made the call, as that one was done by the FBI from its own intercept, not the NSA’s. Nor does it show that Flynn was in some way targeted -- by definition, unmasking occurs when senior administration officials don’t know the name of an American referenced in an intelligence report.

Indeed, there is no indication in the document that anyone listed behaved inappropriately -- in fact, it makes clear that the Obama-era unmaskings happened by the book. “Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original report and the unmasking was approved through NSA’s standard process, which includes a review of the justification for the request,” it states. It also points out that the NSA cannot confirm that any of the persons who requested the unmaskings eventually saw the information.

Grenell’s noninformation plot

Grenell is totally unqualified for his post. While previous occupants of his position ran intelligence agencies, he at most was a consumer of their products during a brief stint as U.S. ambassador to Germany. What he brings to the table instead, along with unswerving loyalty to the president, is broad experience in public relations and shaping news cycles, which he honed as a spokesperson for Republican politicians and for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, a strategic communications consultant for domestic and foreign clients, a Fox contributor, and a notably unhinged Twitter troll.

Grenell personally requested, sought revisions to, declassified, and provided the document to Congress in precisely this form, showing precisely what he wanted to become public.

If he wanted the document to include more information -- by for example, including the actual documents for which Flynn’s name was unmasked, or summaries thereof -- it would. Without that, despite the right-wing chorus linking Grenell’s document to Flynn’s Kislyak calls, it doesn’t provide evidence that any single unmasking had anything to do with them.In fact the majority of the unmaskings predate the calls and thus could not be related. Indeed, it doesn’t even indicate that Flynn was a participant in the intercepts used in the intelligence reports in which his name was unmasked, as the New York Times’ Charlie Savage points out:

If Grenell had wanted the document to include less information -- by, for example, limiting the date range to after Flynn’s December 29 calls with Kislyak, which would reduce the list from 39 names to only eight -- it would.

What he produced is a very long list of names that maximized its impact, with no information whatsoever that any of them were involved in something the least bit inappropriate. That is, presumably, exactly what he wanted to do.

Perhaps Grenell has no evidence of wrongdoing, and few or none of the unmaskings reference the Kislyak calls (which is not implausible, as the FBI derived and distributed its own intercepts of the call with no masking as part of their already in-progress counterintelligence probe of Flynn). In that case, he’s declassified and released this information for a political purpose.

Perhaps he does have that evidence, but isn’t releasing it for now so he can continue to dribble documents out and generate more news stories as the presidential election approaches. In that case, he’s withholding that informationfor a political purpose.

Fox’s propagandists understand that their role in this noninformation campaign is to fill in the gaps left by the document with feverish, often fact-free speculation. Fox’sTucker Carlsondescribed Flynn’s unmasking as a “domestic spying operation” that was “hidden under the pretext of national security,” and that the Obama administration officials involved are “amoral creeps” who committed “felonies” and should be “punished.”

His prime-time colleague Hannity by asking, “What did Barack Hussein Obama know and when did he know it?Tonight, we willunravel the biggest abuse of power scandal in American history.” He also attacked Biden for “lying” about the story and claimed on Wednesday that if the officials involved in Flynn’s unmasking don’t face “justice,” “the great American republic will disintegrate before your eyes.” Despite how little information the Grenell document provides, they are convinced that it vindicates their conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile, Fox personalities are attacking the mainstream press for not obsessing over the story,with Hannity arguing that this proves they are “Democratic shills.” On Friday, Trump himself picked up that angle, praising the Fox morning show for “covering, supremely, the greatest political scandal in the history of the United States, OBAMAGATE,” while pillorying CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as “Fake News” for failing to do so.

It’s no coincidence that Trump and Fox are trying to bully the mainstream press into giving the story more attention. They are counting on journalists to repeat the failures of the 2016 electionand flood the zone with context-free scandal coverage that dirties up the president’s opponent. That’s the play Trump is calling, and the leaders of the Justice Department and intelligence community are eagerly supporting the effort, and will likely continue dropping noninformation and disinformation until Election Day.

---

jordan refers to flynn unmasking ; deep state BS?

WHY GO AFTER MUELLER NOW?

520 wa mon?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/bill-barrs-twisted-plot-to-use-the-doj-as-a-political-weapon-is-just-beginning/

no lnx

Bill Barr’s twisted plot to use the DOJ as a political weapon is just beginning

Written by Nancy LeTourneau / Washington Monthly May 13, 2020

After the Trump administration stonewalled Congress on the release of any records or witnesses during the impeachment hearings, it is important to keep in mind that there is some material they are determined to make public.

Shortly after the attorney general assigned John Durham the task of investigating the Trump-Russia probe, the president announced that he had given Barr the authority to declassify any material pertaining to the investigation. That directive came the day before Trump accused FBI officials of treason and referred to Mueller’s investigators as “killers.”

Normally, it would be the director of national intelligence who would determine whether to release classified information. So before Barr could proceed, the administration needed to get rid of Dan Coates, who hadn’t demonstrated sufficient loyalty to Trump. With the president’s lackey, Richard Grenell, installed as acting DNI, the declassification process is now underway.

Last Thursday, Grenell released the transcripts of classified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee during their investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. That was the same day that the Department of Justice announced that they were dropping the charges against Michael Flynn. Thursday was a busy day. It is also when Grenell delivered a “satchel” of documents to Barr at the Department of Justice. ABC News is now reporting that they contain the names of “former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called ‘unmasking’ of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.” According to Fox News, Barr plans to release the names as early as Tuesday.

What we can expect from this news is a renewal of the attacks on Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice. If you remember, back in March of 2017, shortly after Trump tweeted that the Obama administration had his “wires tapped at Trump Tower,” Devin Nunes went to the White House for a clandestine meeting after which, he held a press conference saying that he had seen intelligence reports that indicated Trump and his associates were included in electronic surveillance.

As it turned out, what he had seen were reports on electronic surveillance of foreign adversaries in which the names of Trump campaign staff had been “unmasked.” Soon all of the attention about that unmasking turned into attacks on Rice. But when the materials Nunes had seen at the White House were shared with members of the House Intelligence Committee, this is what CNN reported.

After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.

Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump’s allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the “unmasking” of US individuals’ identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a “massive story.”…

One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as “normal and appropriate” for officials who serve in that role to the president.

What is about to happen is the same thing I reported on Monday about what right-wing news outlets did with Rice’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Grenell and Barr are selectively leaking information (often with contradictory evidence redacted) that allows Trump’s enablers to cherry-pick statements to lie about the events surrounding the Russia probe and create what they’re calling the “Obamagate” narrative. These particular releases are a coordinated attempt to exonerate Michael Flynn and attack anyone who played a role in his prosecution.

If any of this sounds similar to what Barr did in the days before he released the Mueller report, it is probably because that is exactly what he is doing. He is twisting evidence to lay the groundwork for his coming actions with regard to the Durham investigation.

Back in May 2016, Benjamin Wittes warned us about all of this when he wrote about the fact that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Department of Justice. To demonstrate, he quoted Justice Robert Jackson.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

With an assist from Grenell, that is exactly the sword that Barr is wielding in an attempt to exonerate Trump and smear the previous administration. The attorney general is using the Department of Justice to create a hall of mirrors and, as Peter Wehner suggested, asking us to live within Trump’s lies.

Those who have worked for the Department of Justice under both Republican and Democratic presidents are sounding the alarm. For example, Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department wrote a piece for the New York Times titled, “Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.” Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg shot down one of Barr’s lies by documenting “The long list of people who thought Flynn’s lies were material.” Jonathan Kravis, the federal prosecutor who resigned over Barr’s intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone, wrote:

In both cases [Stone and Flynn], the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle.

Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.

That betrayal of the rule of law is why over 2,000 Justice Department alumni (including our own Julie Zebrak) have signed a statement calling on Congress to hold Barr accountable.

My two cents on the matter would be that we are still in the early stages of how Barr and Grenell are planning to betray the rule of law. They’ll be dropping a bucket-load of twisted lies in the coming months.

wiki

John Henry Durham (born 1950)^[3][4] has been the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut since February 2018. Durham had been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in various positions in the District of Connecticut for 35 years. He is known for leading an inquiry into allegations that FBI agents and Boston police had ties with the mob,^[5] and his role as special prosecutor in the 2005 CIA interrogation tapes destruction.^[3] In May 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr tasked Durham with overseeing a review of the origins of the Russia investigation and to determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was "lawful and appropriate".^[6]

Education and volunteer work

Durham received a B.A. degree with honors from Colgate University in 1972.^[7] He received a J.D. degree in 1975 from the University of Connecticut School of Law.^[3]

After graduation, he was a VISTA volunteer for two years (1975-1977) on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana.^[8]

Career

Connecticut state government

After Durham's volunteer work, he became a state prosecutor in Connecticut. From 1977 to 1978, he served as a Deputy Assistant State's Attorney in the Office of the Chief State's Attorney. From 1978 to 1982, Durham served as an Assistant State's Attorney in the New Haven State's Attorney's Office.^[8]

Federal government

Following those five years as a state prosecutor, Durham became a federal prosecutor, joining the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Connecticut.^[7] From 1982 to 1989, he served as an attorney and then supervisor in the New Haven Field Office of the Boston Strike Force in the Justice Department's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. From 1989 to 1994, he served as Chief of the Office's Criminal Division. From 1994 to 2008, he served as the Deputy U.S. Attorney, and served as the U.S. Attorney in an acting and interim capacity in 1997 and 1998.^[8][9]

In December 2000, Durham revealed secret FBI documents that convinced a judge to vacate the 1968 murder convictions of Enrico Tameleo, Joseph Salvati, Peter J. Limone and Louis Greco because they had been framed by the agency. In 2007, the documents helped Salvati, Limone, and the families of the two other men, who had died in prison, win a $101.7 million civil judgment against the government.^[10]

Durham also led a series of high-profile prosecutions in Connecticut against the New England Mafia and corrupt politicians, including former governor John G. Rowland.^[10]

From 2008 to 2012, Durham also served as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.^[8]

On November 1, 2017, he was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut.^[11] On February 16, 2018, his nomination was confirmed by voice vote of the Senate. He was sworn in on February 22, 2018.^[8]

Appointments as special investigator

Whitey Bulger case

Amid allegations that FBI informants James "Whitey" Bulger and Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi had corrupted their handlers, US Attorney General Janet Reno named Durham special prosecutor in 1999. He oversaw a task force of FBI agents brought in from other offices to investigate the Boston office's handling of informants.^[10] In 2002, Durham helped secure the conviction of retired FBI agent John J. Connolly Jr., who was sentenced to 10 years in prison on federal racketeering charges for protecting Bulger and Flemmi from prosecution and warning Bulger to flee just before the gangster's 1995 indictment.^[10] Durham's task force also gathered evidence against retired FBI agent H. Paul Rico who was indicted in Oklahoma on state charges that he helped Bulger and Flemmi kill a Tulsa businessman in 1981. Rico died in 2004 before the case went to trial.^[10]

CIA interrogation tapes destruction

In 2008, Durham was appointed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes of detainee interrogations.^[12][13][14] On November 8, 2010, Durham closed the investigation without recommending any criminal charges be filed.^[15] Durham's final report remains secret but was the subject of an unsuccessful lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act filed by The New York Times reporter Charlie Savage.^[16]

Torture investigation

In August 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Durham to lead the Justice Department's investigation of the legality of CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the torture of detainees.^[17] Durham's mandate was to look at only those interrogations that had gone "beyond the officially sanctioned guidelines", with Attorney General Holder saying interrogators who had acted in "good faith" based on the guidance found in the torture memos issued by the Bush Justice Department were not to be prosecuted.^[18] Later in 2009, University of Toledo law professor Benjamin G. Davis attended a conference where former officials of the Bush administration had told conference participants shocking stories, and accounts of illegality on the part of more senior Bush officials.^[19] Davis wrote an appeal to former Bush officials to take their accounts of illegality directly to Durham. A criminal investigation into the deaths of two detainees, Gul Rahman in Afghanistan and Manadel al-Jamadi in Iraq, was opened in 2011. It was closed in 2012 with no charges filed.^[20][21]

Investigation into origins of FBI investigation

Main article: Russia investigation origins counter-narrative § Durham inquiry

In April 2019,^[22] Attorney General William Barr announced that he had launched a review of the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections^[23] and it was reported in May that he had assigned Durham to lead it several weeks earlier.^[24] Durham was given the authority "to broadly examin[e] the government's collection of intelligence involving the Trump campaign's interactions with Russians," reviewing government documents and requesting voluntary witness statements.^[24]

On October 24, 2019, it was reported that what had been a review of the Russia investigation was now a criminal probe into the matter. The Justice Department could now utilize subpoena power for both witness testimony and documents. Durham also had at his disposal the power to convene a grand jury and file criminal charges, if needed.^[25][26] The New York Times reported on November 22 that the Justice Department inspector general had made a criminal referral to Durham regarding Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level FBI attorney who had altered an email during the process of acquiring a wiretap warrant renewal on Carter Page, and that referral appeared to be at least part of the reason Durham's investigation was elevated to criminal status.^[27]

The day Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz released his report on the 2016 FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which found the investigation was properly predicated and debunked a number of conspiracy theories regarding its origins, Durham issued a statement saying, "we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened."^[28][29] Many observers inside and outside the Justice Department, including the inspector general, expressed surprise that Durham would issue such a statement, as federal investigators typically do not publicly comment on their ongoing investigations.^[30] Barr also released a statement challenging the findings of the report.^[31] Horowitz later testified to the Senate that prior to release of the report he had asked Durham for any information he had that might change the report's findings, but "none of the discussions changed our findings."^[32] The Washington Post reported that Durham could not provide evidence of any setup by American intelligence.^[33]

The New York Times reported in December 2019 that Durham was examining the role of former CIA director John Brennan in assessing Russian interference in 2016, requesting emails, call logs and other documents. Brennan had been a vocal critic of Trump and a target of the president's accusations of improper activities toward him. The Times reported Durham was specifically examining Brennan's views of the Steele dossier and what he said about it to the FBI and other intelligence agencies. Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper had testified to Congress that the CIA and other intelligence agencies did not rely on the dossier in preparing the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russian interference, and allies of Brennan said he disagreed with the FBI view that the dossier should be given significant weight, as the CIA characterized it as "internet rumor."^[34]

Accolades

In November 2011, Durham was included on The New Republic's list of Washington's most powerful, least famous people.^[35]

Reference

no lnx wapo

National Security

Barr’s review of Russia investigation wins Trump’s favor. Those facing scrutiny suspect he’s chasing conspiracy theories.

Matt Zapotosky,

Josh Dawsey,

Shane Harris and

Rosalind S. Helderman

Oct. 6, 2019

Attorney General William P. Barr has taken an interest in a mysterious European professor whose conversation with an adviser to President Trump’s 2016 campaign helped launch the FBI investigation into possible coordination with Russia — and who has since become the focal point of an unproven conservative theory that the entire inquiry was a setup, people familiar with the matter said.

Those involved in the FBI investigation said they are mystified by the attorney general’s activities and interest in the professor, Joseph Mifsud, and they suspect that Barr might be using Justice Department resources to validate conjecture that Mifsud was deployed against a Trump adviser by Western intelligence to manufacture a basis to investigate the campaign.

“It just seems like they’re doing everything they can to delegitimize the origins of that investigation,” said one person involved with the Russia probe, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the politically sensitive matter that is still being reviewed. “I just don’t think there’s any real basis to disparage it.”

But Barr’s inquiry has heartened Trump and his conservative allies. Trump, who at times has inquired about the origins of the Russia investigation and the professor in particular, has bragged that Barr will get to the bottom of the case and is doing a good job as the country’s top law enforcement official, a White House official said.

‘The enigma of the entire Mueller probe’: Focus on origins of Russian investigation puts spotlight on Maltese professor

Barr’s defenders assert that he is exploring what he views as possible problems.

“He’s not a conspiracy theorist. He’s a realist,” said George Terwilliger, a former deputy attorney general and longtime friend of Barr’s. “And I’m confident that if he has a concern that justifies his personal involvement, it’s based on fact, not conjecture.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Unproven or vague allegations about impropriety in the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe have long been passed between Trump, his conservative allies on Capitol Hill and the conservative media ecosystem — with the country’s top law enforcement official and conservative lawmakers sometimes helping to fuel them.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) wrote in recent days to Australian, Italian and British officials, asking them to cooperate in Barr’s review of the Russia investigation and asserting that the attorney general was “simply doing his job.” Graham said in an interview that he expected Mifsud to be a significant part of the investigation.

“He’s a curious character in this whole deal, and we need to know more about him,” Graham said, adding that he had not talked to Barr about the matter.

“Whatever Barr finds is fine with me,” he said. “If there’s nothing there, there is nothing there. I trust him.”

Attorney general says he believes ‘spying did occur’ in probe of Trump campaign associates

Barr has never spoken specifically about his view on the theories surrounding Mifsud, though people familiar with his thinking say he is interested in the professor and the broader work of the U.S. intelligence community surrounding the Trump campaign. The Washington Post recently reported that Barr had been traveling abroad — to the United Kingdom and Italy, in particular — to ask his foreign counterparts to aid in the Justice Department’s review of the matter.

Barr has long harbored suspicions about the Russia probe, which began before the 2016 election and was later overtaken by then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III after Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey early in his tenure as president. Even before he was nominated, Barr had written a letter to Justice Department leaders asserting that the special counsel’s theory of how Trump might have obstructed justice in the Russia probe seemed “fatally misconceived.” At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in April, Barr said he believed “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign — using a term some feel has a negative connotation, and one which FBI Director Christopher A. Wray later said he would not use.

In May, it was revealed that Barr had assigned U.S. Attorney John H. Durham to determine if the U.S. government’s “intelligence collection activities” related to the Trump campaign were “lawful and appropriate.” Barr told CBS News that month that some of the facts he had learned “don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened,” but he declined to be more specific.

“That’s all I really will say,” Barr said. “Things are just not jiving.”

The unproven theory about Mifsud is that the Maltese professor was working to set up the Trump campaign. Mifsud was undeniably critical to the FBI’s decision to open an investigation. He boasted to Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos about having “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails” — before Russia’s hacking of Democrats was publicly known. When the FBI learned of that conversation some months later, it opened a case.

Mueller’s team wrote that Mifsud “had connections to Russia,” and Comey has described him more bluntly as a “Russian agent.”

:{:{}:

James Baker, who was the FBI’s general counsel when the bureau opened the counterintelligence probe, defended the investigation. “It’s critically important that the American people have confidence in the intelligence community,” he said. “I’m confident that there was no attempted coup and that nothing was done for political reasons.”

:{:{}:

Baker said that after Durham was appointed, he contacted the prosecutor and offered to cooperate with the review. Durham has yet to contact Baker, Baker said.

David Laufman, a former Justice Department counterintelligence official involved in the early stages of the Russia investigation, said on Twitter that Barr’s “spearheading of a Justice Dept. investigation to pursue conspiracy theories about the 2016 election is cause for alarm at the hijacking of a great institution to vindicate partisan political grievances.”

Mifsud was never accused of crimes and last surfaced two years ago for an interview with a reporter in Italy. That has fueled speculation, particularly from those who want to discredit the Russia probe, that he is not what the FBI says he is.

Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani told The Washington Post that he was interested in Mifsudbecause it “seems to me it was a counterintelligence setup .?.?. a rather typical CIA plot to create a basis for the investigation.”

Giuliani noted that he had not talked to Barr or Durham about the matter. A person familiar with Barr’s thinking said Barr has questioned the wisdom of Giuliani’s attempts to get foreign nations, especially Ukraine, to pursue investigations of interest to the president because Giuliani is operating outside normal government channels.

:{:{}:

Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Mifsud, has tweeted that Mifsud was “an Italian intelligence asset who the CIA weaponized.”

Caroline Polisi, a lawyer for Papadopoulos, declined to say whether he has been contacted by Durham or Barr as part of the Justice Department’s review.

Attempts to locate Mifsud were unsuccessful. Stephan Roh, a Swiss lawyer who purports to represent him, has called accusations that Mifsud was a Russian asset “defamatory.”

In Roh’s 2018 book, which postulates that Mifsud was working with Western intelligence, Roh indicated that he interviewed Mifsud about his interactions with Papadopoulos that same month.

Roh did not respond to questions about when he was last in contact with the professor or where he is located. In an email, he declined to comment on any interactions Mifsud has had with the Justice Department “or if there were any.”

According to a former Italian government official, Barr first met with Gennaro Vecchione, the head of Italy’s Security Intelligence Department, on Aug. 15, essentially to establish contact, and returned Sept. 27 for a second meeting with the heads of Italy’s domestic and foreign intelligence services.

Barr, the official said, “asked if Italian intelligence knew anything about Mifsud and if the Italians were aware of his role” in the Russia investigation “in terms of being involved in Italian intelligence itself or if he was politically tied with Italian political leaders allied with the Democrats.” The Italians, the official said, “explained that there is no involvement by the Italian intelligence services in this — and the fact that we don’t have any evidence of this plot.”

“They confirmed no connections, no activities, no interference,” the official said.

The Justice Department inspector general is also examining aspects of the FBI’s Russia probe, but some who have been questioned in it said that Mifsud has not seemed to be a key focus of investigators.

Barr’s critics say his efforts to investigate the investigators are meant to placate Trump — even if that means casting aspersions on U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016

Trump had virtually no relationship with Barr when he chose him to be attorney general in late 2018, and conservative and liberal lawyers alike hoped that Barr might restore independence to the Justice Department that they felt had been eroded in the first years of Trump’s presidency. Barr had been attorney general before, in the George H.W. Bush administration, and was widely respected in conservative legal circles.

Some analysts said Barr disappointed quickly. His characterization of the Mueller report, they noted, hewed closely to Trump’s favored talking point — no collusion, no obstruction — and Mueller felt it so misleading that he complained in a letter that the attorney general “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the special counsel’s work.

“Like most Republican lawyers or most lawyers in Washington, I expected that Bill Barr would be a very by-the-book sort of attorney general, especially since he had done it before and certainly knows the job,” said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney now in private practice at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. “Unfortunately, many people in town now think he is playing politics, or he’s running the department in a way that he’s too political.”

Other analysts, though, noted that Barr had essentially telegraphed the type of attorney general he would be before he was nominated. In addition to writing a memo critical of Mueller, Barr had opined to a New York Times reporter in 2017 that the basis for investigating alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, as well as the controversial sale of a uranium company to Russia while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, was stronger than the basis for launching the Russia investigation.

“I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the [Clinton] Foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion,’ ” Barr wrote.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman when Eric H. Holder Jr. was attorney general, said that when he first saw Barr’s comment, “I thought, this is someone who’s had his brain warped by a couple decades of Fox News, and that’s not the type of person that should be leading the Justice Department.”

“I think Trump basically got what he wanted at the Justice Department — which is someone that would define his job as protecting the president first and foremost,” said Miller, who is an analyst for MSNBC.

Terwilliger, the former deputy attorney general, disputed that assessment, saying Barr “remains as straight an arrow and middle of the road as he can be.”

“If he thinks that there was malfeasance in some aspect of the way the government operated in a way that was designed to hurt the presidency, I think he has every right — indeed, a responsibility — to uncover that,” Terwilliger said.

Barr’s critics and defenders alike note that he has long believed in a strong executive branch, and that is likely to inform some of his interest in protecting Trump and the office he holds.

“When you pair someone with that view of executive authority with this particular president,” said Matt Axelrod, a Justice Department official when Loretta E. Lynch was attorney general, “it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Barr’s defenders, though, note that he has generally enjoyed a good reputation and — given this job might be his last — he is unlikely to want to ruin it over causes in which he doesn’t believe.

“Throughout his career, both in public life and in the corporate world, he’s always been viewed as an individual of tremendous integrity and honesty and always beyond reproach,” said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society legal organization. “I just don’t see him — at the twilight of his career, given everything he’s done, and given his faith-based and spiritual life — coming off the rails at this point.”

Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

---

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › John_Durham_(lawyer)

John Durham (lawyer) - Wikipedia

John Henry Durham (born 1950) has been the United States Attorney for the District of ... In May 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr tasked Durham with ... The Justice Department could now utilize subpoena power for both witness ...

Career · ‎Appointments as special ... · ‎Investigation into origins ...

www.nytimes.com › 2019/12/09 › politics › who-is-john-durham-attorney

Who Is John Durham, the Prosecutor Investigating the Russia ...

Dec 9, 2019 - John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, in 2018. ... U.S. Department of Justice, via Associated Press ... Mr. Barr has expressed concern about the Russia investigation in the past, saying during ...

Missing: federalist ‎bio

time.com › Politics › Justice Department

Barr's review of Russia investigation wins Trump's favor ...

Oct 6, 2019 - Attorney General William P. Barr speaks to Kansas law enforcement ... Email Bio Follow ... Mifsud, and they suspect that Barr might be using Justice Department ... it was revealed that Barr had assigned U.S. Attorney John H. Durham to ... president of the conservative Federalist Society legal organization.

jonathanturley.org › 2019/11/18 › comment-page-1

“Very Dangerous and Indeed Incendiary”: Barr Gives ...

Nov 18, 2019 - I have long defended Attorney Bill Barr, who I believe has been unfairly ... he has been rightfully criticized for his speech at the Federalist Society last Friday. ... Moreover, the Justice Department is not just investigating aspects of the 2016 ... John Durham) but also investigating Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani.

theintercept.com › 2019/12/11 › fbi-trump-russia-investigation-report

FBI Botched Trump-Russia Investigation, Report Finds

Dec 11, 2019 - Top officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, while pushing their ... Attorney General William Barr named a federal prosecutor, John Durham, to conduct a ... The Federalist Society's Impact on the Law Goes Much Deeper, Wash. ... Two recent darlings of the Republican Party were Soviet born ...

www.justice-integrity.org › trump-watch-articles

Trump Watch - Justice Integrity Report

Trump recently sent a birthday message to Kim. But the ... Department of Injustice? djt william barr doj photo march 2019 ... 15 speech at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention in ... John Durham, the federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry, has a reputation for keeping his mouth shut.

Searches related to john durhaM doj

---

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/bill-barr-john-durham-michael-horowitz-inspector-general-report

as expected, the top line of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the origins of the FBI investigation into potential conspiracy between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign tended to exonerate the FBI—investigators found “no documentary or testimonial evidence” that FBI officials were driven by political bias against Trump when they opened the probe, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” in July 2016.

And, also as expected, Trump's night-is-day spin began immediately. “It’s a disgrace what’s happened with the things that were done to our country.... It’s incredible, far worse than what I ever thought possible,” Trump declared at the White House, focusing his criticisms on the findings related to Carter Page, a former adviser to Trump. “They fabricated evidence and they lied to the courts.”

But what was truly surprising to some veterans of the Robert F. Kennedy building and the DC bar was the reaction from Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham, who Barr tapped to run a parallel investigation of Crossfire Hurricane and related investigations. Both issued statements throwing significant shade at Horowitz's report, though, technically, Barr is Horowitz's boss. “I’ve never seen such an internal DOJ effort to challenge and undermine the IG's findings,” Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, told me Monday. “It is not what the Department of Justice does.”

While Barr endorsed Horowitz’s conclusions condemning the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance, he deviated from the determination that Crossfire Hurricane was adequately predicated. “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr wrote in a statement. “It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration."

barr’s decision to publicly distance himself from Horowitz’s findings was met with some astonishment. “No law enforcement purpose is served by the Attorney General announcing that he disagrees with the inspector general’s conclusion that the FBI had an adequate predicate for its investigation of Russia’s contacts with the Trump campaign,” William Jeffress, a white-collar defense attorney who worked on the Valerie Plame leak case, told me. Barr's missive was reminiscent of the now infamous four-page summary of Robert Mueller’s report, respinning the results of an exhaustive investigation in ways favorable to the president. “The statement by Barr will only deepen the sense that he is a Trump partisan who lacks the independence to lead the Department of Justice,” Jeffress added.

Durham's was, in some ways, even more unusual.“Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.,” Durham said in a statement. “Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Given the reality that Durham’s investigation, which is reportedly criminal in nature, remains ongoing made his decision to speak out even more perplexing. “I am surprised that Durham announced now that he does not agree with certain of the inspector general’s findings, rather than waiting until his own work is complete,” Eric Columbus, a former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, said. And Jeffress echoed his criticism of Barr regarding Durham, telling me his statement, “encourages the belief that he is not acting as a professional prosecutor but is only doing the partisan bidding of his boss.”

Within mere hours of Horowitz releasing his report, avid watchers of the probe amplified the aspects that benefited their respective camps. Veterans of the FBI, like James Comey, the bureau's former director, and Lisa Page, the FBI attorney ensnared in the investigation, claimed victory. Democrats, while acknowledging that the review revealed troubling issues with the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) application process, propped up the finding that the Trump-Russia investigation wasn’t founded in political bias. “The IG’s report shows that the investigation Special Counsel Mueller took over was not politically motivated and that officials acted appropriately in opening the investigation,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney said in a joint statement. Trump allies, for their part, chose instead to latch onto the Carter Page revelations and the statements from Durham and Barr.

By early evening, the takeaways from Horowitz’s review differed starkly depending upon one’s corner of the media and political landscape. But this was perhaps by design. This very confusion, Litman suggested, seemed “to be the kind of upshot of having multiple investigations.” Indeed, Barr’s decision to tap Durham to investigate aspects of the Trump-Russia probe, despite Horowitz’s separate investigation, has long raised eyebrows. Not to mention the attorney general’s atypically outsize involvement in the Durham investigation. “The whole thing is really irregular,” Litman added.

---

www.nbcnews.com › politics › justice-department › justice-departmen...

Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal ...

Oct 24, 2019 - A Justice Department review into the origins of an investigation into Russian ... A probe by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia ... The firing of FBI Director James Comey led to the appointment of Mueller ...

www.nbcnews.com › politics › justice-department › ag-barr-expands-...

AG Barr expands mysterious review into origin of Russia ...

Oct 19, 2019 - A review launched by AG William Barr into the origins of the Russia ... And there is tension between the CIA and the Justice Department over what ... The firing of FBI Director James Comey led to the appointment of Robert ...

www.nytimes.com › russia-investigation-justice-department-review

Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of ...

May 13, 2019 - Mr. Barr has signaled his concerns about the Russia investigation during ... Former F.B.I. and Justice Department officials have defended the ...

www.nytimes.com › politics › john-durham-criminal-investigation

Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own ...

Oct 24, 2019 - Now, Mr. Trump's own Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into how it all began. ... Mr. Trump fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director under whose ... as does his long obsession with the origins of the Russia inquiry. ... Mr. Barr expressed skepticism of the Russia investigation even ...

apnews.com › ...

Barr: FBI's Russia investigation based on 'bogus narrative'

Dec 10, 2019 - WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General William Barr leveled blistering criticism at how the Russia investigation was conducted, saying ... who temporarily replaced Comey but was later fired by the Justice Department.

Missing: origin ‎| Must include:origin

www.politico.com › story › william-barr-investigation-russia-1330008

Barr forcefully defends DOJ probe into origin of the Russia ...

May 17, 2019 - Attorney General Bill Barr is forcefully defending the Justice Department's probe into the origins of the Russia investigation, saying he has ...

Missing: comey ‎| Must include:comey

www.cnn.com › politics › barr-probe-russia-2016-criminal-investigation

Barr's investigation into origins of Trump-Russia probe is now ...

Oct 24, 2019 - Attorney General William Barr's probe into the intelligence and origins of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation is now a criminal investigation, ...

www.foxnews.com › media › james-comey-william-barr-russia-investiga...

Comey confident Barr's findings on him, Russia investigation ...

Oct 26, 2019 - Former FBI Director James Comey called on the Justice Department to ... by Attorney General William Barr to look into the origins of the Russia ...

www.washingtonexaminer.com › news › cia-rattled-by-doj-inquiry-in...

CIA 'rattled' by DOJ inquiry into Russia investigation origins

Oct 21, 2019 - The Justice Department's review of the origins of the Russia ... Times that notes President Trump granted Barr expansive powers for the inquiry, ... Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey discussing the use of British ...

www.cbsnews.com › news › justice-department-to-review-origins-of-t...

Justice Department upgrades Russia review to criminal ...

Oct 25, 2019 - The Department of Justice has upgraded its probe into the origins of the ... The investigation is being overseen by Attorney General William Barr and being ... In 2017, he fired then-FBI director James Comey, later telling "NBC ...

===

john durham e s q

Passing reports to intelligence agencies

After public release

NY Times reported John Durham found the “Clinton Plan” emails were likely created by Russian spies. Right-wing media are running with them as legitimate.

newly unearthed emails undercut a key argument in an indictment from Bill Barr's appointed prosecutor: NYT

The Trumpist defense of Michael Flynn

“Unmasking” and what Grenell’s document shows

Grenell’s noninformation plot

Contents

Education and volunteer work

Career

Connecticut state government

Federal government

Appointments as special investigator

Whitey Bulger case

CIA interrogation tapes destruction

Torture investigation

Investigation into origins of FBI investigation

Accolades

See also

Reference

John Durham (lawyer) - Wikipedia

Who Is John Durham, the Prosecutor Investigating the Russia ...

Meet John Durham, the Investigator of the Investigators | Time

5 Things to Know About John Durham—Barr's Pick to Probe ...

John Durham: The low-profile Connecticut prosecutor leading ...

The Decline and Fall of William Barr by Kent Harrington ...

Barr's review of Russia investigation wins Trump's favor ...

“Very Dangerous and Indeed Incendiary”: Barr Gives ...

FBI Botched Trump-Russia Investigation, Report Finds

Trump Watch - Justice Integrity Report

Searches related to john durhaM doj

Justice Department review of Russia probe turns into criminal ...

AG Barr expands mysterious review into origin of Russia ...

Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of ...

Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own ...

Barr: FBI's Russia investigation based on 'bogus narrative'

Barr forcefully defends DOJ probe into origin of the Russia ...

Barr's investigation into origins of Trump-Russia probe is now ...

Comey confident Barr's findings on him, Russia investigation ...

CIA 'rattled' by DOJ inquiry into Russia investigation origins

Justice Department upgrades Russia review to criminal ...