The failing NY Times has published a damning review of the Durham “investigation,” which I post here with a gift link so everyone can read it.
The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.
Moreover, a monthslong review by The New York 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.
The article is detailed and damning, and backs up with @Lance_Turbo and others have been saying in this thread, that this was a politically motivated hack investigation, pushed by a partisan Attorney General, that resulted in absolutely nothing but a waste of years and millions of $$ (and the tarnishing of what was once Durham’s good reputation).
In particular, there is this astonishing detail about a serious and credible tip the justice department received from Italian authorities about alleged Trump financial crimes:
But rather than assign it to another prosecutor, Mr. Barr had Mr. Durham investigate the matter himself — giving him criminal prosecution powers for the first time — even though the possible wrongdoing by Mr. Trump did not fall squarely within Mr. Durham’s assignment to scrutinize the origins of the Russia inquiry, the people said.
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.
There’s a lot more in the article about how Barr and Durham obfuscated this criminal investigation into Trump, but I don’t want to over-quote. I wonder how thorough this supposed “investigation” really was.