Friday, August 13, 2021

A Durham Sighting?

The WSJ has an article out today that brings us--sort of--up to date on the Bull Durham investigation--or whatever it is he's doing--into the Russia Hoax. You can read the whole article here, courtesy of Mike Sylwester:

Durham Probe of What Sparked Russia Investigation Examines FBI Tipsters

The special counsel is expected to submit a final report in the coming months

Some explanation or translation is called for. "Russia Investigation" means "Crossfire Hurricane," which means the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump. "FBI Tipsters" means non-FBI persons who tried to instigate the FBI investigation of Trump--or, maybe, that means something like, people who provided the FBI with cover for their investigation. Hey, YMMV.

You can also read Techno Fog's commentary on this article:

Tracking the latest Durham Developments

WSJ Report: potential charges against several lower-level FBI employees

Here's the long and the short of it from the WSJ:

WASHINGTON—Special Counsel John Durham, appointed during the Trump administration to examine the origins of the FBI’s 2016 Russia probe, is presenting evidence to a grand jury and preparing a lengthy report expected to be completed in the coming months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Durham’s review, which began in May 2019, has led to one prosecution to date and has gone on longer than the two-year tenure of special counsel Robert Mueller, who in May 2017 took over the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mr. Durham has been examining potential criminal charges against several lower-level FBI employees, and people who aren’t in government, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Durham was also expected to deliver a report by the end of this summer, though that target is likely to be pushed back, some of the people said.

The special counsel regulations required Mr. Durham to have reported on the status of the investigation and submitted a proposed budget by July 1 for the next fiscal year that begins in October. Attorney General Merrick Garland could then determine whether the investigation would continue and establish the budget.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to say whether Mr. Garland has decided to allow Mr. Durham’s probe to continue beyond September or approved a budget for the next fiscal year, citing a policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. In May, the Justice Department disclosed that the Durham investigation had spent around $1.5 million between October 2020 and March.

It's pretty thin gruel, for my money. Durham has had plenty of time to do the job he was appointed to do. "Several lower-level FBI employees" doesn't excite me. "People who aren't in the government?" Based on the wording of the WSJ article, Techno Fog puts forward two names:

Christopher Steele--as if the Brits would turn him over to be put on trial in the US?

Igor Danchenko--another name that doesn't excite me.

My bottom line is that the Russia Hoax was the biggest political sabotage operation in US history, involving the Clinton Campaign, the Obama Administration, and elements of the Deep State--all at their highest levels. Fall guys don't do it for me--although I'd love to be forced to eat my words at this late date.

For additional perspective--especially regarding the whole Alfa Bank hoax, which Techno Fog does discuss--I suggest this article from shortly before the election:

A Glaring Hole in the Alfa Bank/Trump Server Story Could Unravel the Russia Hoax

It's a good way to refresh one's recollection and features references to fine investigative reporting by Lee Smith.


  1. I believe more in Santa than Durham.

  2. AP story about the same topic clearly states that Durham is "presenting evidence" to the GJ (presumably re: Alfa Bank.)

    If they were simply using the GJ to subpoena documents, would this be true?

    Excerpts from the AP article:

    >> Quote:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — John Durham, the federal prosecutor tapped to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, has been presenting evidence before a grand jury as part of his probe, a person familiar with the matter said Friday.

    The development is a potential sign that Durham may be mulling additional criminal charges beyond the one he brought last year against a former FBI lawyer who admitted altering an email about a Trump campaign aide who’d been under FBI surveillance. Durham is also expected to complete a report at some point.

    A person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed Durham’s use of the grand jury to The Associated Press.

    One area of focus in Durham’s inquiry has been the FBI’s reliance on anti-Trump research that was conducted by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which U.S. officials cited in applications to a secretive surveillance court for warrants to monitor Page’s communications.

    The Brookings Institution has confirmed that it received a subpoena from Durham last Dec. 31 for records and other information related to a former employee — a Russia analyst who functioned as a source of information for Steele and who was later interviewed by the FBI.

    Durham has also been examining whether anyone presented the U.S. government with information that they knew to be false about potential connections between Alfa Bank, a privately-owned, commercial bank in Russia, and a Trump campaign server, according to the person familiar with the matter. The FBI investigated but concluded that there were no cyber links, according to the inspector general report.

    Alfa Bank has, meanwhile, alleged in a lawsuit in Florida state court that it was the target of “highly sophisticated cyberattacks” in 2016 and 2017, and that it was victimized by a disinformation campaign aimed at publicly and incorrectly linking the bank to the Trump campaign. Durham’s line of inquiry resembles the claims in that suit, the person said. [snip] <<

    1. We really don't have any real basis for speculation based on the information we have or think we have. Note the vague wording: "potential sign". Fair enough. It's also possible that Durham is recommending no indictments. We just don't know.

      For the rest, it's all pretty much the same as WSJ and Techno Fog.

  3. I interpreted Durham looking at 'tipsters' as meaning he is NOT looking at the FBI or anyone else in the deep state...

    "The tipsters did it...." (after they were told what story to tell at Brookings....haha)

  4. It's a fair interpretation. References to "low-level FBI employees" doesn't necessarily mean anyone is in danger.

  5. All those months thinking of Durham as a professional...

  6. AP had a similar rather vague article today.

    Is this supposed to distract the right from Covid tyranny, inflation, Afghanistan, the border invasion? What fresh new Biden hell looms? Seriously?

    I hate it when they think we’re stupid.

  7. "A Durham Sighting?"

    False alarm, it was just a guy dressed a monkey costume throwing bananas at the other monkeys. ;)

  8. I believe Durham’s whatever will be buried with this administration, and especially with AG Garland.

    The only question is how.

  9. I just looked out the window....heavy snow expected tonight in Los Angeles....!!!

  10. Sundance has his own take on this. First, the articles on this Durham story are all pretty much alike. Didn’t take a genius to see that. As for his opinion on why this won’t go anywhere except into another “report” and a bunch of “ain’t it awful” media reporting from the usual suspects, I won’t try to paraphrase.

    1. I read that earlier. It's essentially the same as what we're saying here--the people behind it are too big to be taken down. Sundance is right to talk about Mueller. The Rosensteins, Comeys, Muellers, and the rest at similar levels can't be taken down because they know too much. That immunity even goes a bit lower--thus a chump like Clinesmith even gets no more than the wet noodle.