Latest News

June 7, 2023

John Durham blew it.

It’s not because the special counsel failed to get the convictions of Sussmann and Danchenko; we knew (and he knew) that in a Washington DC courtroom, the deck was stacked against him to such an extent that he would almost certainly lose.  Our assumption has always been that he prosecuted those cases to get out the larger story of the Russia Hoax, and, to his eternal credit, he did that.  Most of the media didn’t even cover it, though, or else distorted its findings, leading us to wonder:  if the Durham Report drops in the forest and there’s no media to report it, does it make a sound?

Still, Durham did document that story for all who care to read it, present and future.  And he showed conclusively that the whole thing was built on air, traceable to the “I’m with Her” Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign.  He also revealed that the FBI --- and, yes, the Obama White House --- knew all along that Hillary’s campaign had been plotting to frame Trump for Russian collaboration.

No, Durham blew it by failing to take the opportunity to investigate the so-called Russian “hack” of the servers at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).  As long as he was investigating the origins of the Russia Hoax, why on earth didn’t he look into what was arguably the genesis for the whole thing?  The claim that Russians collaborated with Trump was all a tremendous hoax, so why should anyone believe Russians hacked the DNC?  Isn’t it likely that this was just as much of a sham?

Aaron Mate of REALCLEAR COMMUNICATIONS wondered the same thing, and has dug deep into this mystery in an excellent article.

Mate writes that “Durham does not address the Clinton campaign’s equally central tie to Russiagate’s other foundational allegation:  that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by hacking Democratic party severs and releasing the material through Wikileaks to help elect Trump.”  And this was after unearthing new information that called the claim into question.

Durham could see that the Clinton campaign and its contractor, the cyber firm CrowdStrike, had stonewalled the FBI’s requests for critical data.  Two key Clinton associates, Michael Sussmann (remember him?) and CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry, who were deeply involved in the handling of the investigation, appear to have perjured themselves before Congress, telling them the FBI never even asked for the servers.

It came out during the Sussmann trial that Sussmann was the one who had hired the (yes) Clinton-funded CrowdStrike to investigate the so-called “hack.”  That was in April 2016, and in June, around the time Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele started working together to create the (yes) Clinton-funded Steele “dossier,” CrowdStrike came forward to publicly accuse Russia of hacking the Democrat servers.

Sussmann lobbied the FBI to get them to back this claim, even though they hadn’t had a chance to look at any evidence.  The FBI initially declined but relented several months later, even though they STILL hadn’t had a chance to look at any evidence.  According to Mate, they simply relied on CrowdStrike’s own forensics and redacted reports.  Yes, redacted.  For the FBI.

And this was even after Shawn Henry admitted under oath that his firm “did not have concrete evidence” that the Russians had hacked the servers.

As Mate reports in one stunning sentence: “Shawn Henry, a former close FBI colleague of Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, made the disclosure to Congress in December 2017.  Yet his testimony was kept secret throughout the entirety of the FBI’s Comey- and Mueller-overseen Russia probes, and only became public in May 2020.”  Henry was also a Clinton associate.

Here’s what Mate wrote about May 2020.  For when you have time, this makes great reading today.!

In his new piece, Mate goes on to show how both Sussmann and Henry lied under oath about the same thing, saying the FBI had not to their knowledge requested access to the servers.  But the FBI did request access, and emails show they knew perfectly well about it.

Emails also show CrowdStrike’s efforts to avoid complying with the FBI’s request for on-site access.  They would, “at no additional expense to anyone” because they wanted to support their “friends at the FBI,” send the Bureau “a copy of the firm’s imaging of the servers.”  Wasn’t that nice of them?  And never mind the request by Elvis Chan of the FBI San Francisco field office to come on-site; they talked Chan into accepting their offer to mail him the copy they had made.

While prosecuting the Sussmann case, Durham missed his opportunity to press both Sussmann and Henry on why they denied the FBI access to the servers.  It might have been that their false statements to Congress were material and, therefore, criminal.  (Mate contrasts this with the aggressive way false statements to Congress by Trump associates Roger Stone and Michael Cohen were prosecuted.)

Durham apparently didn’t follow up on emails he uncovered that show CrowdStrike and the Clinton campaign also ignored the FBI number-one “Priority Request,” made September 30, 2016: “Un-redacted copies of CrowdStrike reports” on both the DNC and DCCC “incidents.”  (Note that they didn’t say “hacks.”)  We know the FBI never got these, because the ‘Justice’ Department said so in a court filing dated May 2019.

As Mate reports, “In Senate testimony, James Trainor, then assistant director of the FBI’s Cyber Division, recalled that he was ‘frustrated’ with the CrowdStrike report he received in late August 2016 and ‘doubted its completeness’ because Sussmann had ‘scrubbed’ it.”  (!!!)

REALCLEAR INVESTIGATIONS filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the CrowdStrike reports, but were sent only the cover pages.  Redacted reports were provided to the House and Senate Intel Committees but have not been released publicly.  As for the unredacted CrowdStrike reports, they are in a hermetically sealed vault 10,000 feet beneath the surface of the Earth. (That might be an exaggeration, but not much of one.)

Another fact revealed in the Sussmann case (and we reported on this at the time):  the Clinton lawyer personally reviewed and edited the FBI’s initial public statement on the alleged “hack” of the DNC.  Amazingly, Sussmann’s input on the press releases was actually solicited, by Agent Trainor.

In their release, the FBI had called this a “possible intrusion.”  That wasn’t good enough for Sussmann, who in an email said the word “possible” undermined the Clinton campaign’s messaging, which presented the Russian “hack” as established without question.  Trainor took the word “possible” out and reworded it to please Sussmann!

Mate also shows that when the intel community --- in a statement approved by Obama --- first publicly blamed the Russians for a “hack,” it was still a week before CrowdStrike denied the FBI’s request for an on-site inspection of the servers.  “This timing means,” he says, “that when the intelligence community made its first public attribution of Russian hacking, it had not only failed to inspect the servers, but had not even received CrowdStrke’s copies of them.”  In other words, like the Russia Hoax, the story of the Russian “hack” seems to have been built on nothing.

In a detailed report two months later, the FBI and DHS pulled back a bit, using the word “likely” to describe a Russian hack, but by now the public had accepted it as fact.  No doubt Hillary was well pleased.     

So why in blazes didn’t Durham pursue this?  As Mate writes, “Durham’s’ decision to ignore the FBI’s deference to the Hillary-funded CrowdStrike is all the more striking given his criticism of Hillary-funded sources in its search for collusion.”  It’s been seven years since the so-called “hack,” and given the track record of the FBI and the Hillary campaign, there’s plenty of reason to believe this is just one more of their deceptions.

And the mystery remains:  if there was no Russian hack, how did those emails get to Wikileaks?


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

More Stories

Comments 1-10 of 10

  • Steven Lechtenberg

    06/07/2023 07:48 PM

    Another excellent read about our corrupt political class. But unfortunately that’s all we do is read one article after another about these crooked politicians and their corrupt ways. I don’t believe anything will ever be done to hold them accountable. You and the other article writers tell us to vote them out, but how??? They now know that they don’t even really need our votes to win, they know our corrupt judiciary will throw any attempt to seek remedies in the courts!!! The MSM BSer’s will also cover for them. We are a one party rule country now and if Ray Charles were alive he could even see it. Money and corruption go together and the democrats have both on their side. 1984 looks like a fairy tale compared to what is happening now and will happen. I have always told people that political parties will be the downfall of this country, and just look at what is happening now

  • Michael Manoogian

    06/07/2023 07:09 PM

    1. Does anybody expect the government to fully investigate itself?
    2. I do not believe that Durham had the range to seek indictments of the major players. At best, he prosecuted peripheral actors, leaving HRC, Comey, Sztrok,... untouched.
    3. Listen to the recent Comey press tour. He warns of a Trump "retribution presidency." I think a major deep state rearrangement is in order.

  • Aleta J Nordin

    06/07/2023 05:47 PM

    Durham is a very smart man, he did not over look anything in that investigation. He is a Democrat and I knew he would not do a thorough job and clear Trump of everything!!!!!!! Why can people not see those things very clearly?????? You never trust the opposition with out proof. If this country hasn't learned that then we are stuck with the evil dimms!!!!!!!!! Jonathan Turley is the man I would trust the most on the Democratic side, and I would want proof of him too. And Durham took way too long for what he reported, who knows what he found that he did not report!!!!!

  • charles e reasoner

    06/07/2023 12:14 PM

    Exactly! Boom!

  • Jeannette Beatrice Hubbart

    06/07/2023 11:55 AM

    I really appreciate your daily emails, uncovering the truth of what's happening and has happened in our government. I'm constantly frustrated that this corruption is so pervasive AND that news media doesn't cover it. It's mind blowing that these tricksters are still not locked up for a very long time! Come soon, Lord Jesus!

  • Alan Lese

    06/07/2023 10:59 AM

    And what about Seth Rich? Nobody is looking into who murdered him and where is his computer that was stolen?

  • Angela L Lawson

    06/07/2023 10:37 AM

    My question is why did Durham wait to report his findings after that statute of limitations was over? Just more taxpayer money down a rathole! Furthermore, it makes me wonder if ol' Durham wasn't in on "the take"! Somebody found his number and paid him off to delay the report! I don't put anything by The Criminal Democrat Party.

  • Aaron Strange

    06/07/2023 10:00 AM

    Durham likely chose not to investigate the hack on purpose. It is sad but even if he had found evidence that any Democrat or Deep State individual did something criminal, nothing is never done.

  • Kathy Rockemannn

    06/07/2023 09:57 AM

    Mr Huckabee,
    I find the entire situation, not only frustrating but very telling. I think the reason Durham didn't act more aggressively is he's just as dirty as the rest. Five years into the investigation, he finally releases his findings? He didn't release anything new. We all knew who was behind it. He should be prosecuted along with the rest.

  • Lynn Lamar

    06/07/2023 09:29 AM

    Will any of these Clinton, Obama crooks ever actually get prosecuted for their crimes or is this just the usual "it will all go away soon" crap. That's my only question. Accountability.