John Durham, the veteran Justice Department lawyer who was appointed to review the manner in which the FBI, CIA and other government agencies investigated (or helped contrive) allegations of Donald Trump’s collusion with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, has issued his report. The public version (there is also a classified appendix) is over 300 pages long, single-spaced. I haven’t yet read it; in fact, it has barely finished downloading to my computer. I already know, however, what enlightened opinion will say in response: “That’s old news, and Durham didn’t convict anybody of a crime. Send this to the memory hole.” Still, as Steven Hayward observes, the story is at least being reported prior to its burial:
Justice Department special counsel John Durham has at long last released his final report into the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Russia hoax of 2016, and even the mainstream media can’t conceal or disguise the blows Durham delivers at the FBI. Moreover, besides launching an investigation of Trump based on nothing and not telling him, Durham notes that very different handling of corroborated evidence that foreign interests were trying to influence Hillary Clinton’s campaign – and that she was told about it by the FBI. But as we like to say about double-standards for liberals around here. . .
On the other hand, the New York Times already has its shovels out:
John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel who for four years has pursued a politically fraught investigation into the Russia inquiry, accused the F.B.I. of a “lack of analytical rigor” in a final report made public on Monday that examined the bureau’s investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign was conspiring with Moscow.
Mr. Durham’s 306-page report appeared to show little substantial new information about the F.B.I.’s handling of the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, and it failed to produce the kinds of blockbuster revelations impugning the bureau that former President Donald J. Trump and his allies had once suggested that Mr. Durham would find.
As I said, “Old News”. Funny that one never saw it in the Times.
Comments