Thread by @emptywheel

My thread on the Durham Report.

Durham took well over twice as long as Mueller and found, literally, bupkis.

documentcloud.org/documents/2381…

I bet you $100 sight unseen that Johnny D made significant errors here, who's up for that bet?

Durham wildly expands the remit of this report (in part to make debunked claims about people he failed to convict). I guess it's a precedent.

It's supposed to be declinations and prosecutions.

Here's a list of the investigations not covered--listing the Trump CI investigation among others.

This is literally the only thing that Durham was supposed to report on.

One reason Durham doesn't put more details to the international aspect of this is bc he'd have to report on all the whiskey-drinking goose chases he and Billy went on, chasing Papadopoulos conspiracy theories.

The Durham (4 full years) versus Mueller (22 months) Report

Johnny D includes this bullshit language about juries when the two cases he charges were rejected by juries.

Here's how Johnny D describes his scope. Note that he doesn't describe his scope at founding. I'll come back to this but this is a BIG tell.....

Johnny D suggests there should have been MORE surveillance of Trump.

Johnny D suggests Pete Strzok should have done MORE surveillance in advance.

Not only does Johnny D misunderstand why this might be briefed to Obama, but he suggests opening an investigation into Hillary for saying mean things about Trump, with no involvement of a foreign govt. It is INSANE.

After trashing the DOJ IG Report, Durham claims credit for the Kevin Clinesmith prosecution.

Hilariously pathetic.

Here Durham EXCLUDES information about how Danchenko's handlers accounted for the fact of prior investigation into Danchenko that rebuts his little theory, which was aired at trial.

Durham here WILDLY overstates his certainty about sourcing and lies about what Danchenko said. If I were Danchenko, I'd sue, bc Durham is making claims that were adjudicated to be false.

Durham criminally investigated something that he--with zero evidence--says contributed to a public narrative of conspiring and colluding.

This claim is 100% false. The evidence shows that Durham DIDN'T pursue the evidence needed to prove or disprove this claim.

Stunning corruption.

I think I'll make a criminal referral for lying to DOJ.

Durham's like, "Sure a jury told me I was dead wrong, but I'm going to claim it anyway."

Again it's stunning that he is doing this. Totally upends due process.

In which Durham tries to make the worst NYT story ever into a criminal issue.

Again, this is insanity. He is criminalizing writing things you believe to be true.

Another false claim. Durham's just churning out 1001 crime after 1001 crime -- and probably some lawsuits for DOJ to defend.

Nice of Durham to prove that he knew what rule he violated with Rodney Joffe.

Another rule Durham violated.

Another rule that Durham violated.

Durham complains that an Ombud report doesn't consider the Carter Page app -- RATHER THAN THE ENTIRE MUELLER INVESTIGATION -- background to why the IC was ignoring RU intelligence.

A reminder (since Durham doesn't provide it) that DOJ IG found evidence of just one campaign was being investigated by informants handled by biased FBI Agents in 2016, and it was Clinton, not Trump.

John Durham is so dumb he doesn't understand what physical surveillance entails.

This is a misstatement of what the FBI DIrector certification is about. It conflates means available to FISA with least intrusive means, which are not always the same thing.

EG remote access to Signal is something FBI only does on FISA.

John Durham retaliating against a witness for testifying truthfully.

Another false claim from Durham. Carter Page told FBI himself that he thought there was nothing wrong with providing non-public information to people he knew to be Russian spies.

One reason it matters that DUrham wildly misrepresents this is bc THIS investigation would get beyond all 1A concerns about Page tied to Trump. It is dishonest, and pathetic.

Durham invents an inconsistency when instead he provides clarification. Pap told more about the Russian dirt the first time.

In other words, Pap boasted TWICE that Russians were going to help Trump.

But Durham says this wasn't suspect.

To his credit, Durham actually MENTIONS Trump's Russia are you listening comment (he tried to exclude it from his two failed trials). But he doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it.

Durham's dumb and so may not understand this, but here he's complaining that MORE spooks weren't involved.

In case you need evidence that Durham is dishonest, this ellipsis omits a discussion of evidence that Papadopoulos told Sam Clovis about the emails.

documentcloud.org/documents/2040…

This is insanely obtuse. Durham suggests that the only place to get intelligence abt Trump's ties to RU was the Steele dossier WHILE REFERENCING Oleg Deripaska, who was getting campaign strategy from Manafort.

Johnny D making the case that the IC should have surveilled Trump FAR MORE than they did (and also proving that his claims about being spied on were false).

Durham includes 2 pages showing that the spooks weren't sufficiently concerned about Trump in advance, and WILDLY misunderstands the predication of the investigation (which was not about a conspiracy between THE CAMPAIGN and Russia).

Durham complains that FBI did not violate limitations on overt investigative steps before the election. He's basically bitching that FBI DIDN'T violate rules designed to protect the election.

Durham complains that Hillary got a defensive briefing about a CI investigation at least 10 months after the investigation was opened, before the election period.

Trump got his defensive briefing less than 10 months after Crossfire Hurricane started, in Feb 2017.

[In other words, the evidence actually shows that Trump was BETTER treated than Hillary.]

Durham then measures the amount of time it took to get a FISA on Page from the start of Crossfire Hurricane and not the opening of the investigation into Page.

In general, Durham just ignores that preexisting investigations.

Then Durham compares Hillary's campaign asking a foreigner NOT to attend with Trump, who begged Russia for help publicly.

This ... doesn't really help Trump, but Durham is too stupid to understand that.

Durham complains that the FBI didn't investigate why Hillary's campaign accepted a donation from a US person.

So at least one of three investigations into the Clinton Foundation was initially predicated on Clinton Cash--which would be the equivalent of opening an investigation SOLELY on the Steele Report.

Durham forgets, again, that the investigation into Page was opened in April.

This comparison is nuts.

First, it ignores that Hillary was hacked by Russia. Second, it equates Clinton Cash with the Aussies sharing information in response to the hack-and-leak.

It's like Durham has gone insane and people just keep smiling at him as he raves on a park bench

Here's how Johnny D rationalizes opening up an investigation into what would be, if true, Hillary's 1A protected activity.

Johnny D treats this report as exclusively pertaining to Hillary.

It reported on Guccifer 2.0.

Here Durham simply ignores the redacted information.

There are points of this report where it's clear Durham has ENTIRELY forgotten that Hillary was hacked by Russia in the middle of a campaign.

Note how in this section Durham doesn't mention that Trump ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK HIS OPPONENT?!?!?!

Durham conducted a criminal investigation into Hillary's justifiable complaint about Trump asking Russia to hack her.

Btw, the only mention of Guccifer 2.0, with whom Roger Stone was discussing stolen records, is in the quote about this report. Durham just pretends it didn't exist.

Here, Durham is criminally investigating Hillary because she wanted the FBI to announce publicly that Russia had hacked her, which Russia had done.

Again, no mention that TRUMP ASKED RUSSIA TO HACK HILLARY.

Here, Durham presents evidence that Hillary wanted to know if the FBI was investigating her hack as proof that she had a plan to say mean things about Trump.

Because wanting to know whether the FBI is investigating the crime committed against you is proof of a crime, I guess.

Like he states that right out here: Hillary's campain wanting to know if the crime they were victimized by is proof of something else entirely.