6 Reasons The NYT’s Hit Job On John Durham’s Imminent Report Instantly Unravels

Under the guise of reporting the findings of their supposed month-long review of John Durham’s investigation, The New York Times’ top three Russia-collusion hoaxers, Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, and Katie Benner, launched a preemptive assault on Durham and former Attorney General William Barr in anticipation of the release of the special counsel report.

Thursday’s article, “How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled,” These top six takeaways prove that one part chutzpah is two parts managment.

1. You Going To Believe the Media — or Evidence?

In their Thursday tale, the Times trio opened by declaring that Special Counsel Durham’s investigation into Crossfire Hurricane “failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.” To supposedly prove their existence, “Russia inquiry unraveled” narrative, it was declared so by the authors. 

“Mr. Durham’s work is coming to an end without uncovering anything like the deep state plot alleged by Mr. Trump and suspected by Mr. Barr,” The Times declared, informing readers that the probe was closed. “went unsuccessfully down one path after another…”

The Times doesn’t have a clue what Durham “uncovered,” Knowing only what defense lawyers and other unnamed attorneys know “sources” Several aspects of the probe were revealed. But with the release of Durham’s report forthcoming, the authors seek to prime the public to believe it will be a flop. 

But it doesn’t take access to inside information or Durham’s final report to know that the special counsel’s office uncovered “wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.” Criminals Case Igor Danchenko, Russia’s national source of Steele dossiers, was accused of making false statements. “confirmed that Crossfire Hurricane was never properly predicated and that instead, politics prompted the targeting of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.”

In 2008, I learned that “Danchenko allegedly told a colleague he knew people who would buy classified information,” the FBI — rather than open a “full investigation” into Danchenko — initiated only a “preliminary investigation.” Only the FBI converted the “preliminary investigation” “into a ‘full investigation’ after learning that the defendant (1) had been identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects and (2) had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.” 

The FBI, however, opened a “full investigation” The more abstract claim that George Papadopoulos (then-Trump campaign advisor) suggested that the Russians had dirt about Hillary Clinton in May 2016 was what led to Trump’s acceptance. 

The FBI’s failure to launch an investigation into Clinton crony Charles Dolan likewise confirms that the initial targeting of Trump suffered from political influence. The public has already access to relevant evidence from Danchenko, and court documents. Filings Dolan was questioned by witnesses who revealed two FBI agents. “had previously worked for a firm that managed a PR campaign for the Kremlin.” Dolan’s connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary and a sub-source for the Steele dossier also raised red flags. 

Dolan was then interviewed by FBI agents