Jump to content

Talk:John Durham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:John Durham (lawyer))


Untitled

[edit]

This article is imprecise about its use of words like "investigation" and other similar words, which have precise legal meaning. It is important to carefully quote the mandate that has been given to Durham, which is very narrowly defined and limited. IANAL, so a real lawyer needs to edit this stub.

BobSchacht (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Bob in AZ[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Durham (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

glitch at this page or in the system?

[edit]

In reviewing History, there are inappropriate displays. Is something going wrong in Wikipedia, or maybe just this page? X1\ (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits/changes were done 20:02, 16 May 2019 and were reverted 20:07, 16 May 2019 along with my edits. Disconcerting. X1\ (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything wrong, but it's difficult to know what I should be looking for unless you say more specifically what you mean by "inappropriate displays". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: it appears to have passed. When I was attempting to make my edits, upon review of my edits, I found other edits had been made; twice. May be someone in the background reverted the page to an earlier backup? My "inappropriate displays" was intentionally vague as I was rushing to figure-out what was happening. My "admin help" was an attempt at guessing if there was a server issue, that maybe a wp/wm Server Engineer would know the answer. Hopefully it just doesn't happen again. X1\ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FBI review

[edit]

During the Senate committee on April 10, 2019, Barr "told a Senate subcommittee that spying on the Trump campaign occurred and that he's undertaking a review of the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into members of the Trump campaign and Russia to determine whether there was "unauthorized surveillance." (CNN_4/10/19) There hasn't been an official announcement from Barr or anyone else from the Justice Department; the news report on May 13 and 14 are based on confidential sources. He's not in charge of the separate Justice Department IG investigation of the wiretap authorization against Carter Page and of Colorado A.G. John W. Huber's—according to Justice Dept.—ongoing investigation into the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Career section

[edit]

I tried to improve and I recognize that more was needed, but the order of this section as recently revised is a bit random and jumps around a lot, has been made less chronological. Especially the last 2 paragraphs which are early stuff. Sullidav (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller in infobox

[edit]

Is it accurate to describe Mueller as Durham’s predecessor? Their jobs are not mutually exclusive, and there can any number of special counsels at any given time, each investigating completely different things, as is the case here. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons, I question whether it's correct to identify Jack Smith as his successor.DoctorCaligari (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on all three counts. Just because they temporally succeeded each other with the same "special counsel" title does not mean they are "successors". Treat them individually. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKay (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Durham (lawyer) → John Durham – As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "John Durham (lawyer)" > "John Durham"; "John Durham" > "John Durham (disambiguation)", with a hatnote on John Durham. Pageviews for the other two aren't even close: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=John_Durham_(lawyer)|John_S._Durham_(ambassador)|John_Durham_(Medal_of_Honor) . Ich (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yodabyte's edits

[edit]

Yodabyte, in your first removal[1] of this:

Sussmann, a former federal prosecutor, characterized the allegations against him as politically motivated and pleaded not guilty the day after his indictment.

your edit summary said this should be excluded because this is Durham's BLP. Nevertheless, Durham has charged Sussmann with a felony and it seems to be standard operating procedure to briefly note Sussmann's response. Specifically, because of his ties to the DNC, and the ties of his firm to the Clinton campaign and the whole dossier thing, which I intentionally included here, it leaves open the opportunity for all sorts of speculation that he was a Clinton operative and perhaps that's why Durham indicted him, so we need to show that Sussman considers the matter politically motivated. If we leave in the part about DNC/Clinton, it potentially leads the reader to the conclusion that Sussmann must be a Clinton operative, so we at least need to show what Sussmann says about it, in a handful of words.

Upon your next removal, you said "not what most recent sources say in the past week."[2] About what, specifically? That he is a former federal prosecutor? That he said it was politically motivated? That he pleaded not guilty? What sources say any of those things are incorrect or have changed? The analysis of the indictment I've seen has been overwhelmingly critical, notably by Benjamin Wittes:

In fact, it doesn’t describe FBI malfeasance against Trump at all, but portrays the FBI as the victim of agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives...the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen in more than 25 years covering federal investigations and prosecutions.[3]

Also, Sussmann was hardly the only person to raise his eyebrows about the Alfa-Bank matter.[4] By making it his claim, your edit suggests that he was all alone in pushing "agitprop brought to it by outside political operatives." Maybe Durham can prove that, but we're not there yet.

Perhaps we can also discuss your changes in the context of how some conservative commentators have spun this matter.

And why did you twice remove all the references that support the entire paragraph? soibangla (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would exclude Sussmann's characterizations as unneeded (and maybe WP:MANDY). If a response is needed, simply say he pleaded not guilty. Additionally, the charge was brought by the Biden DoJ, so it is difficult to see how it could be politically motivated if a Democrat administration indicts another Democrat. Why are you linking that New Yorker piece as if it has any credibility anymore? It quotes Franklin Foer, who admitted he was one of the reporters working with Sussman to concoct the fake story. The indictment disproves any connection between Alfa and Trump, debunking that New Yorker piece and the many other stories who falsely reported that there was a link. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way in hell the Biden DOJ will in any way hinder Durham, lest it be accused of a coverup. He has carte blanche. And the New Yorker piece is about what was known then, not now. Check the date. soibangla (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is Biden's DOJ, but it is a continuation of Trump's "investigation of the investigation", often described as a cover-up. -- Valjean (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mr Ernie, you need to be careful about violating BLP ("concoct the fake story"). The server was owned by the Trump Foundation and was communicating with an Alfa Bank server. That is fact. People were wondering about the nature of the transmissions, and various speculations were in the air by many people. Such speculations were not proven fact, but speculation. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source confirming the communication? Like, one that doesn't cite something that came from Sussman? As Wittes notes, "The FBI investigated whether there were cyber links between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, but had concluded by early February 2017 that there were no such links." That's also what is in the Sussman indictment. Have you read the indictment? Pages 13 and 14 are relevant here. Long story short they pushed forward with the Alfa Bank connection and shopped it to the FBI and media despite knowing it was weak and likely a "red herring." I don't think the media knowingly pushed a fake story, but it was a fake story. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"by early February 2017." But this was in September 2016. shopped it to the FBI and media despite knowing it was weak is the conservative commentator narrative, anyway. They often get the timeline wrong, I'm sure just by accident. They have also asserted that Garland had to have approved the indictment, thereby suggesting he agrees it's legitimate, but the reality is far more likely that he didn't block it because he's given Durham carte blanche so there is no appearance of a coverup. soibangla (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sussman and the tech executive developed the Alfa Bank connection topic. They knew it was somewhat weak (per the indictment) but they took it to the FBI anyways (in Sept 2016), and by the way probably mentioned it to a few media sources. The FBI investigated it and found it was bogus (this took until February 2017). Knowing it was weak is not the conservative commentator narrative, it's from the tech executive's words in the Sussman indictment. Sussman did this at the behest of the DNC to cook up negative press about Trump. Clinton herself tweeted her advisor Jake Sullivan's statement about the Alfa Bank connection, just a few days before the election. To be fair, Clinton probably didn't know she'd paid for that. Durham and Garland have pretty good reputations, so I'd be careful of saying what they are doing is out of political motivations. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of edit conflicts going on. I just discovered this comment. What are the sources for this ("Sussman and the tech executive developed the Alfa Bank connection topic.") Why would they take fake data to the FBI for verification? That makes no sense. -- Valjean (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think they would take that data to the FBI? That's what Sussman is being indicted for - he allegedly concealed he was doing it on behalf of the Clinton campaign. (this comment edited to add the word "allegedly" Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)) Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to rephrase he concealed he was doing it on behalf of the Clinton campaign as an allegation? soibangla (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good catch, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving from below as it's relevant here. The legal experts are shredding Durham's case. Relevant to this Benjamin Wittes quote above ("the document is one of the very weakest federal criminal indictments I have ever seen..."), Barbara McQuade wrote: "...but the charge against Sussman — making false statements to the FBI — doesn’t allege that the substance of the information was false. Instead, Sussmann is accused of misrepresented on whose behalf he was providing it."[5] She goes on to detail several ways in which Durham's case seems political, is hypocritical, and comes woefully short of" the necessary standard to "sustain a conviction." In fact, Baker's own previous testimony undermines his own later description of Sussmann's statement and intent. It's inadmissible hearsay "evidence", and Sussmann's statement is not "material to the matter at issue." She really rips the whole case apart, and she, like Wittes, is an expert witness in these matters.
The FBI and DOJ knew all along that Sussmann was working for a law firm that was working for the DNC and Clinton Campaign. That was not kept secret from them. They had access to that info when Sussmann first approached them. McQuaid makes that clear: "What’s more, Sussmann worked at the Perkins Coie law firm, whose representation of the Clinton campaign was publicly known. And based on the assistant director’s notes, it appears that Sussmann did tell Baker that he “represents DNC, Clinton Foundation, etc.”" -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Durham acted out of political motivations, I reported Sussmann did, and all I'm saying about Garland is he's respecting Durham's autonomy to keep everything straight up. Though Sussman did this at the behest of the DNC to cook up negative press about Trump may not a BLP vio only because he doesn't have a BLP. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
soibangla, BLP applies to all living persons (except editors here), even if they don't have an article here. -- Valjean (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my impression, but I wasn't certain of it. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever questioned that there was suspicious (at the time) traffic between the servers, just about their nature (what was sent, was it a server owned by Trump Foundation or a server hired by them, etc.) Here are some of the first articles about it.[6][7]. This very recent one gives the latest (largely a debunking of the original speculations).[8] Did the Clinton campaign try to make hay from it? Heck yes. See the tweet (shown in the article) with the four points known at the time. They dropped the issue as later evidence of nefarious intent wasn't forthcoming. -- Valjean (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Foer wrote a followup: Trump’s Server, Revisited. Sorting through the new evidence, and competing theories, about the Trump server that appeared to be communicating with a Russian bank. -- Valjean (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean at this point I have to think you are joking or pulling my leg. The Slate article author is Franklin Foer, who is mentioned in the Sussman indictment as a reporter who Sussman was in contact with (Foer admitted this on his Twitter). At this point no one credible believes there was a connection between the servers, largely per the FBI's conclusions. Why do you still? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm always willing to learn more. What are the sources? Are you implying that Sussmann fed Foer fake info? -- Valjean (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Sussman indictment. It isn't very long - https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download. Foer is "Reporter 2" in for example paragraph 35. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Ernie, I have just started reading, and this is the wording I was seeking. You state "no one credible believes there was a connection between the servers." I have contended there was, and that it was just the nature of the communication. This may seem just like semantics, but there was communication between servers. That is unquestioned. The indictment states:
"In particular, and among other things, the FBI's investigation revealed that the email server at issue was not owned or operated by the Trump Organization but, rather, had been administered by a mass marketing email company that sent advertisements for Trump hotels and hundreds of other clients."[9]
This clarification doesn't say there was no communication between some servers. The implication is that it wasn't used as a Trump Organization (presumably suspected actions for the campaign) backchannel with Russian collaborators. It was just mass marketing for Trump hotels using a server hired by them to do that type of thing. Does that clear it up? -- Valjean (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've always wondered about is the strange way in which each server knew the IP address to contact. IIRC, immediately after it became public that the two servers were communicating, the Trump server stopped sending and moved to a new (secret) IP, and the Alfa Bank server resumed communication with that new IP address a week later. How did the Russians know so quickly the right IP address? It would seem there was actual, deliberate, back channel communication going on between people on each end. Some speculate that the packets of data being sent were related to the voter analysis data we know was sent by Manafort to Russian agents. I wish we knew more about this, but we may never know. Does anyone here know more about this? We need this info for several articles. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The servers were not communicating with each other. You have your facts wrong. Your comment is conspiracy theorizing and just flat out incorrect. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is just the nature of the communication that's questioned. -- Valjean (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no communication between a Trump owned server and Alfa Bank. Read this story from WaPo, which also mentions Foer. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above. I posted that link above. Trump did not own the server, only hired it for mass mailings. Communication between servers existed. It is the nature of the communications that was questioned. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Soibangla that Sussmann's denial should be restored, per the requirement at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This goes far beyond a typical Mandy denial. -- Valjean (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored Sussmann's denial per the requirement at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This goes far beyond a typical Mandy denial, and leaving it out violates BLP. -- Valjean (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He’s Really Bad At Discovery

[edit]

I'm not sure how this fits in, but it might be of interest:

Valjean (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if it came from a less hysterically biased source. The article is dripping with contempt; I'd say including the link above here in talk probably presents a BLP violation. Anastrophe (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More doubts about Durham's treatment of the Danchenko and Sussmann matters

[edit]

"The conduct of Durham’s team provides further reason to maintain some skepticism toward any claims it makes that have yet to be tested in an adversarial proceeding. That is one reason why it has been surprising to see so much of the media treat the Igor Danchenko indictment and all of its claims about the Steele dossier as if they are unquestionably true in all their minute details."

"... a healthy amount of skepticism is always a good idea, particularly when a prosecutor has been less than completely trustworthy."[1]

Valjean (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better than the previous one - at least it's a reliable source - but I'm unclear why articles that overtly take digs at Durham's character/integrity - speculatively and without evidence - are at play. Durham's integrity is generally considered sterling. Anastrophe (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I think he's getting blowback for shoddy work at this point. He's trying to prosecute the kinds of things that D.C. prosecutors rarely prosecute, and apparently on a very weak basis. Put that together with the dubious reasons he was appointed in the first place, and the job he was given, makes for a mess. Since when does the Justice Dept. "investigate the investigators"? That's really odd, and smells of fishing/cover-up. -- Valjean (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but again, it's all speculative. We don't know if he has other stuff, and is playing his cards close. Sure - at this point, what we've seen is very slim. But until the investigation concludes, do these speculations belong in the BLP? Here's another source that takes a deep dive into matters to this point, and does so about as neutrally as I've seen - https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/is-durhams-case-on-clinton-tied-lawyer-michael-sussmann-collapsing/
Anastrophe (talk) 22:42, December 12, 2021‎ (UTC)
I'll have to read that. I'm suspicious of McCarthy because of his involvement in some conspiracy theories. IIRC, he's the McCarthy whom we have rejected as a source for Trump/Russia matters because of that. He's the one who started the Spygate (conspiracy theory). See this article: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/25/17380212/spygate-trump-russia-spy-stefan-halper-fbi-explained I suspect that he may have regretted the way Trump ran with that story and built a huge conspiracy theory on a very shaky and weak foundation. McCarthy may not have intended that to happen. I do like reading him as he still has a sharp legal mind, and this article shows that.
Feel free to provide some key quotes from the article. -- Valjean (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He makes an important point here:

"...the exuberance over Durham’s indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated."

The next point is important, because many who are very skeptical of the Steele dossier (calling it totally false, fictitious, a hoax, etc.) fall into the trap of believing the charges against Danchenko, Sussmann, and Clinesmith, totally and definitively bury the dossier. Some even suggest the whole article should be deleted and we start all over again, but McCarthy rightly trashes such thinking:

"Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus,... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham’s prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false." (italics original)

They may have lied by attributing some information to someone other than the real source (a legitimate attempt to protect a sensitive and vulnerable source), but that may not have any effect on the truth or falsity of the allegation itself. It may still be true, false, or just a half-truth rumor, depending on its true reliability, and Steele always said he thought the dossier, as a whole, was only 70-90% true, and guessed the "pee tape" allegation only had a 50% chance of being true.

Interestingly, the fact that Trump lied several times to Comey about the pee tape caused him to move from a strong skeptic about the pee tape allegation to a "maybe" peeliever. He saw Trump's uncalled-for prevarications as evidence of guilt, and Comey is certainly an expert at ferreting out when someone is lying. True or false, it falls in line with Trump's character (no one who knows him would be surprised), and the Agaralovs (who supposedly kept Trump kompromat for Putin), who were likely behind the offer of five women to Trump at the time, were with Trump at The Act strip/sexy club in Las Vegas shortly before the Moscow trip in 2013. There they stayed long and saw floorshows featuring handicap sex and a golden showers show. Michael Cohen, as always, was with Trump: "Trump’s reaction to the show, Cohen writes, was 'disbelief and delight'."[10]

So the Agaralovs knew Trump's tastes and what to offer him at the Ritz Carlton. Even Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, couldn't give him an alibi. Whether this ended up as an actual pee tape episode or not is something we may never know. The existing one does seem very accurate because it does not follow the media's sensationalized descriptions but closely follows the dossier's boring description. It isn't porn, contains no sexual acts, and does not involve Trump (or his double) in the act. He just sits there with his cellphone making the familiar gestures we all have seen him make a thousand times. It's too bad that Steele followed his MI6 training so slavishly and included that allegation, because it ended serving as a big distraction from the more serious allegations, the ones later confirmed by Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee. Steele knew, before the FBI, the three-point nature of the Russian interference, and six months after it was written in the dossier, the 2017 ODNI report confirmed that Steele was right about those allegations he made. -- Valjean (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Khardori, Ankush (December 9, 2021). "The Trials of John Durham". New York. Retrieved December 12, 2021.

Biden's Justice Department Should Not Be Pursuing Trump's Political Vendetta

[edit]

Yes, context matters, and the reason for the start of Durham's investigation is still problematic, as it was based on lies and conspiracy theories pushed by TFG to distract from, and cover-up, his misdeeds:

  • "...a yearslong effort by Donald Trump and former Attorney General William Barr to seek retribution for the Trump-Russia investigation... John Durham, who was appointed by Barr in early 2019...to investigate the origins of what Trump and Barr had characterized as a “witch hunt.” Their apparent hope was that Durham...would find that senior DOJ or FBI officials in the Obama-Biden administration had somehow tried to manufacture or exaggerate ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. So far, he has not, but the fresh round of subpoenas suggests that Durham is continuing his work."
  • "...a seemingly aimless criminal investigation that began as a political vendetta on the part of Trump."
  • "...the effort looks suspiciously like a proverbial fishing expedition. These concerns were further compounded on Thursday, when both CNN and the New York Times published stories that suggested that allegations in the Sussmann indictment were based on a highly selective — and arguably disingenuous — characterization of relevant emails."
  • "... the DOJ under Garland appears to be sitting idly by as information continues to accumulate that provides further reason to investigate the conduct of Trump himself in the wake of the 2020 election."[1]

Of course, anything from this should be attributed to Khardori. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up TFG (we're not all policy wonks!). I'm not really sure it's appropriate to drop into vernacular characterizations that have multiple meanings - 'The Former Guy' or sometimes, "That Fucking Guy". The quoted material is also largely speculative. At this point, this article is going into far too much detail on the current investigation: little of the material already here directly has to do with Durham himself (this being a BLP), and deals with an ongoing investigation, the majority of details into which we have no visibility, because, well, that's rather implicit in it being ongoing, and not complete. Large portions of these sections are already covered elsewhere. Again, this is the biography of John Durham, not a litigation of this recent portion of his life and career. The article is going off the rails.Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anastrophe, you have no idea how much I agree with you! The investigation stuff, per SUMMARYSTYLE, should occupy a short section of no more than two paragraphs here, probably just one, with a "main" link to the main article, which doesn't even exist yet. That's really odd. This stuff is scattered all over the place, and I'd like to gather it together into one article. Right now it's found in these locations:

It deserves a title like this Durham Special counsel investigation. (Do you have suggestions for a better title?)

We have articles for other investigations:

You don't have to spend any time on it if you don't want to, but do you think it's a good idea? -- Valjean (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only very minimally engaged/invested in these matters. The massive amounts of cloak & dagger and allegations of cloak & dagger and theories of cloak & dagger being employed upon other cloak & dagger in all the Trump stuff makes my head hurt, and I instead eat cookies, which is far more pleasant. Anastrophe (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Khardori, Ankush (September 30, 2021). "Biden's Justice Department Should Not Be Pursuing Trump's Political Vendetta". Politico. Retrieved December 12, 2021.

Jack Smith and John Durham

[edit]

These two special counsels currently oversee separate investigations. See this NY Times article (18 November 2022). According to the Times article, John Durham has not yet submitted his final report. Robert.Allen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems biased to the right

[edit]

I would expect the page to report the massive controversy about Durham's alleged bias and malfeasance, the resignation of his #2, his highly inappropriate relationship with AG Barr during his Special Counsel tenure; his use of Russian intelligence to attempt to gain access to emails, etc. etc. etc. See NYT, 1/26/23. Kevintimba (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Durham special counsel investigation soibangla (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Counsel

[edit]

@Valjean: Re this revert. The readable text is only 200 characters longer than the version you reverted to but it had three additional reliable sources I added. The difference between the two text versions is that mine contains more facts from reliable secondary sources instead of an entire paragraph, added here by an editor with a total of 24 edits (mostly on Durham and the Russia investigation), consisting of two long quotes (or maybe three because of the confusing quotation marks) from Durham’s final report. We should be using significant views that have been published by reliable sources and not give Durham’s report, the primary source, the last word, so to speak. This is a comparatively short article, length isn’t an issue. I think it is relevant for Durham’s personal bio that, e.g., the few indictments that resulted from his expensive four-year investigation had nothing to do with the allegations and insinuations publicized by Durham throughout the investigation and in his final report.

Version reverted to:

After a three-and-a-half-year investigation, Durham indicted three men, one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation and was sentenced to probation. The other two men were tried and acquitted. In both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump.[1][2]

On May 12, 2023, Durham submitted his final report to Barr's successor Merrick Garland.[3][4] On May 15, 2023, Garland released the unclassified report "in full as submitted to me, without any additions, redactions, or other modifications”.[5]

The report was highly critical of the FBI and concluded that "the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election." The report also stated, "the FBI used raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence" to launch the "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign."[5]

References

  1. ^ Cohen, Marshall (October 18, 2022). "Primary source for Trump-Russia dossier acquitted, handing special counsel Durham another trial loss". CNN.
  2. ^ Rizzo, Salvador; Weiner, Rachel; Stein, Perry. "Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham". The Washington Post.
  3. ^ "Letter to Chairman Durbin, Chairman Jordan, Senator Graham, and Representative Nadler" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2023. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  4. ^ "Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. May 12, 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2023. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  5. ^ a b Cohen, Zachary; Cole, Devan; Tierney; Perez, Evan; Rabinowitz, Hannah; Herb, Jeremy; Cohen, Marshall (May 16, 2023). "Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe". CNN. Retrieved September 13, 2023.

Reverted version:

After a three-and-a-half-year investigation, Durham indicted three men. One of them, whose misconduct hat been uncovered by the DOJ Inspector General's 2019 review of the FBI investigation, pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the origins of the FBI investigation and was sentenced to probation. The other two, a Clinton campaign lawyer and a Russian-American analyst, men were tried for lying to the FBI and acquitted.[1][2] In both trials, Durham alleged the defendants had deceived the FBI, rather than alleging the FBI acted improperly toward Trump.[3][4]

On May 12, 2023, Durham submitted his final report to Barr's successor Merrick Garland.[5][6][1][2] On May 15, 2023, Garland released the unclassified report "in full as submitted to me, without any additions, redactions, or other modifications”.[7] The report criticized the FBI for problems in its investigation, which had also been uncovered by the 2019 IG review, but did not state that the investigation had violated any rule,[1][2] concluding that the FBI should have launched a preliminary instead of a full investigation into ties between Trump and Russia.[8] The New York Times wrote that the report "largely consisted of recycled material, interlaced with conclusions like Mr. Durham's accusation that the F.B.I. had displayed a 'lack of analytical rigor'".[2]

References

  1. ^ a b c Tucker, Eric; Whitehurst, Lindsay (May 16, 2023). "Special prosecutor ends Trump-Russia investigation, saying FBI acted hastily". Associated Press. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  2. ^ a b c d Savage, Charlie (May 17, 2023). "After Years of Political Hype, the Durham Inquiry Failed to Deliver". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 17, 2023. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  3. ^ Cohen, Marshall (October 18, 2022). "Primary source for Trump-Russia dossier acquitted, handing special counsel Durham another trial loss". CNN.
  4. ^ Rizzo, Salvador; Weiner, Rachel; Stein, Perry. "Steele dossier source acquitted, in loss for special counsel Durham". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ "Letter to Chairman Durbin, Chairman Jordan, Senator Graham, and Representative Nadler" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2023. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  6. ^ "Report on Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. May 12, 2023. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 15, 2023. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  7. ^ Cohen, Zachary; Cole, Devan; Tierney; Perez, Evan; Rabinowitz, Hannah; Herb, Jeremy; Cohen, Marshall (May 16, 2023). "Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe". CNN. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  8. ^ Hodgman, Lucy (June 21, 2023). "Democrats and Republicans clash over Durham testimony on FBI report". Politico. Retrieved September 13, 2023.

You actually challenged the paragraph with the quotes when 7/11 added it to Durham special counsel investigation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have restored your version and fixed a typo as well. Let's see what others think. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Durham&oldid=1207063798"