As with other pre-indictment stories on federal investigations, I’ll caution this news likely comes via the defense lawyers and may reflect their particular lens on the case or their desire to position it a particular way in the public sphere. nytimes.com/2021/09/15/us/… 
On the other hand, the Durham investigation has been pretty peculiar so maybe it is doing something outlandish.
So with that throat clearing out of the way, the allegation as presented in the story is that a Perkins lawyer went to the FBI to present the Alfa bank research and, in some prefatory remarks recalled by the FBI GC, misrepresented on whose behalf he was doing it.
The FBI GC recalls him saying he wasn’t representing a client. The lawyer and the firm hold that he was representing the researcher. And Durham, through an analysis of billing records for other time, not the meeting in question, holds he was representing the Clinton campaign.
So the Durham investigation, in short, is reportedly getting geared up to confuse the hell out of a jury with a bank shot case based on Jim Baker’s five year old memory and the descriptions in a fancy lawyer’s five year old time entries.
Wait, no, it’s even more convoluted than that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
