Technically, the assertion is that he had no reason to lie in July of 2016 and July of 2020. The former is definitely before this happened, as far as I can tell, but the latter is definitely after, unless he’s arguing that all the death threats came after July 2020.
Even in 2016 he probably realized that talking to the FBI about being an informant on Russia might not be the best thing for one’s health.
Look, they hooked him up to the motive meter and scientifically measured zero motive. For four straight years.
It’s irrefutable.
New York Times is reporting that the Durham grand jury is expired and no motions pending to extend or convene a new one.
“Over the course of his inquiry, Mr. Durham has developed cases against two people accused of lying to the F.B.I. 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.”
Poor Sam.
So to all the various posts by various posters telling us that, if we just wait, the validity of Durham’s position will be revealed or the “reckoning” will come etc etc:
Can we stop waiting now?
DurAnon
Nope, nope. What if something else happens. Must wait more.
(Until we forget about the whole stupid thing)
I am not a lawyer, but a man from a year in the future, and I can tell you that none of this bore any resemblance to what really happened. I suggest skipping this thread, you’ll be disappointed.
It feels like some of you are forgetting the Conspiracy Theorists’s Credo:
Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.
So, ipso facto, Durham apparently winding it down is incontrovertible proof of … uh … what was it again?
QED
…that They™ got to him!
Its proof that they got all the evidence they needed to take down Biden and reinstall Trump. Big Things happening in the next Two Weeks!!
When a post contains phrases like, “I have seen several analyses”, “I have also heard”, and “so I’ve been told”, but doesn’t cite any sources for any of that, you can rest assured that one year in the future will bear no resemblance to the way that post envisioned things going down.
RELEASE THE MEMO!
… wait, sorry, getting my right wing fantasagasms mixed-up.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT!…….
The recent court filing that shut down Trump’s lawsuit over Trump/Russia was interesting and I think it has some implications for Durham’s investigation. Part of the filing was a detailed analysis of the timelines, and the judge concluded that everything he alleged was time-barred by the statutes of limitations. He even said that though the alleged acts didn’t rise to RICO conspiracy, even if they did they all occurred outside the 4 year window.
He also said the entire lawsuit was a performative grievance filled gish-gallop of lies and bullshit, and hinted and sanctions against the lawyers that filed it. He didn’t use those words, of course, but that’s what he said.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277845-ruling-in-trump-v-clinton
I really don’t understand why the Durham investigation is still open, he just doesn’t have anything that occurred within the various statutes of limitations.
The second to last line…
“I reserve jurisdiction to adjudicate issues pertaining to sanctions.”
Are you actually Dr. Allison Gill? 
(if you are or not you’re awesome)
This does not bode well for Johnny D.
As with Sussmann, Durham is going to have trouble showing that the alleged false statements made by Danchenko are even untrue.
“The law criminalizes only unambiguously false statements that are material to a specific decision of the government,” Danchenko’s attorneys Stuart A. Sears and Danny Onorato wrote, adding that the FBI’s questions at issue “were fundamentally ambiguous, Mr. Danchenko’s answers were literally true, non-responsive, or ambiguous, and the statements were not material to a specific government decision.”
This seems to be different/more than the above, and/but also not a win for JD:
Gosh, guys, is it a good sign if, as a prosecutor… and just go with me here… if you call your first witness and he does such a good job bolstering the defense teams argument that you have to close questioning by discrediting your own expert witness?
Is this good lawing?