The Durham Investigation Has Lasted 50% Longer than the Mueller Investigation

/61 Comments/in , , /by

It seems like just days ago we were celebrating a big milestone in the life of the Durham investigation: the 1,000 day mark.

Time flies when you’re unethically making accusations designed to rile up the frothy base, because Durham hits another major milestone today.

Today makes day 1,011 for Durham. The Mueller investigation lasted 674 days, total. So as of today, John Durham has been investigation for 50% longer than the entire Mueller investigation he was hired to undermine.

I had to highlight the end date for Mueller because it gets lost when compared to the Durham timeline.

In 22 months, Mueller got convictions of Trump’s Coffee Boy, his National Security Advisor, his Campaign Manager and the Campaign Manager’s Deputy, Trump’s personal lawyer, as well as another American and the son-in-law of Alfa Bank Oligarch German Khan. On a referral, a second Konstantin Kilimnik partner, Sam Patten pled guilty. Mueller charged 25 Russian involved in attacks on the country, as well as Kilimnik himself in a conspiracy with Manafort (though not the conspiracy for trading campaign strategy for debt relief). With another eight months, DC’s US Attorney would win Roger Stone’s conviction. None of those things — not the George Papadopoulos guilty plea, not the guilty plea of Khan’s son-in-law Alex Van der Zwaan, and not Michael Cohen’s plea to covering up the communications he had (on Trump’s behalf) with the Kremlin — derives from either the Steele dossier or the Alfa-Bank anomalies.

In half again that time span, John Durham has won the guilty plea of Kevin Clinesmith (whose misconduct DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found), charged Michael Sussmann for lying about coordinating with Hillary staffers he didn’t coordinate with, and charged Igor Danchenko for lies that Durham’s prosecutors created, at least in part, with cut-and-paste failures. All because he’s sure — and he’s going to keep going until he finds proof — that the abundant prosecutions Mueller obtained were the fruit of stuff that Durham is working hard to criminalize and not the criminal conduct that all those Trump flunkies but Stone admitted to.

With the addition of a new financial crimes prosecutor yesterday to the Michael Sussmann prosecution team, I feel like Durham is barely getting started. Why not double the length of time it Mueller took to investigate rather than avoid admitting you can’t substantiate any of your conspiracy theories?

image_print
61 replies
  1. joel fisher says:

    The longer this evil foolishness goes on the more I’m convinced that Durham is trying to get himself fired so he can claim “cover-up” to the vast right wing nuttery. And they will believe.

    • Rayne says:

      So far he’s been a massive waste of taxpayer’s hard-earned money. Why allow him to throw more money down the drain and suck up valuable court time while DOJ is working on the largest complex of interrelated investigations in its history?

      Furthermore, how do we know he isn’t providing intelligence to opposition in some way? He had to have had an identified bias or have been compromised in some way for Durham to be appointed to this particular gig.

      There has to be an offramp developed for him because he’s nothing but a disinformation opportunity at best.

      • Rugger9 says:

        That’s where a dismissal in the Sussmann case might provide the ammo to dump Durham, especially if the judge sanctions Durham for wasting everyone’s time, which we know he has. The judge would be an independent objective voice Garland could point to.

        Doesn’t Durham have a grand jury that expires?

        • bmaz says:

          There are always grand juries empaneled in every district and state. They are there always, even if kind of silently. And a prosecutor can go access them any time. I think your question is could Durham empanel a “special grand jury” at this point, and the answer is yes he probably could, the bar is low for that. Though CJ Beryl Howell may be fairly suspect about now, and grand juries run through her.

      • Nick P says:

        I agree that Durham has wasted taxpayer money to investigate matters that Michael Horowitz already did (most of them).
        I am pretty sure that if AG Garland terminates (or underfunds) Durham’s frivolous investigation, he will likely be viciously attacked from the right and pro-Trump groups that he is providing cover up to Hillary, Obama etc.

        • Rayne says:

          What kind of funding does an investigation need which has produced such scant results so far? Marcy’s done a better job at sussing the facts and on a damned shoestring from the other side of the Atlantic.

          Nah. Garland’s going to be attacked anyway you look at it — just look at what the right-wing noise machine spun up about DNS lookups which was pure bullshit.

  4. Spencer Dawkins says:

    So I have to ask, what’s the end game, if Durham doesn’t self-shut down and no one wants to “fire” him and listen to cover-up accusations? Are we waiting for him to die of old age?

  5. new here says:

    I’ve only recently started visiting this site after seeing your stories linked elsewhere (usually by Charlie Pierce), so I apologize if this is a rookie question. Aren’t we past the point where Merrick Garland could stop this clown’s “investigation” and fire him due to gross incompetence? And if so, why hasn’t he done so?

    • Agnieszka says:

      Also new here and not a lawyer so it’s not an expert opinion, but here goes:

      Basically for Garland to step on a special counsel’s investigation opened during the previous administration (especially one he was asked about during his conformation hearings) would be (seen as) an overtly political move. Unless there is an extremely good reason to close it, and so far there isn’t one, the expected course of action is for Durham to complete the investigation and submit his report to the AG.

      As much as this doesn’t appear to be anything else than a politically motivated sham investigation with a specific end in mind, which isn’t to get to the facts, Garland ca’t really be like “Hey, I watched Morning Joe the other day and you’re fired!” neither does he read every single filing in this case and gets to determine prosecutorial misconduct based on their content.

      Depending on how bad things go, a potential scenario is that Garland could later refer Durham for disciplinary action, like e.g. Michael Sherwin. That was for discussing an open investigation – a very clear and specific violation – though, and that’s arguably the one thing Durham’s been smart about.

      So far, there are only two indictments (okay, three if you count Clinesmith) and none of those people has gone to trial yet. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but it’s discussed in a couple (?) of articles by Ms Wheeler that there are some events (still within SOL) which Durham can try to bookend the ‘conspiracy’ with.

      Personally, I think he’s going aim with the report before the midterms, but who knows?

  6. Tippi’s G says:

    All hail emptywheel. I come for the unmatched detailed analysis, but I will always stay for the rare journalist who actually understands percentages!

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        You document your corrections and revisions, and give them visibility (rather than hide them on page 15). You bring receipts in the form of citations and explanations, and credit newsworthy sources. All rarities among journalists, including those working for the biggest MSM.

  7. Outcountry says:

    A barely-serious suggestion: Seems like there should be an “investigation of the investigator of the investigation” to find out who Durham’s been unofficially talking to outside the Justice Dept over the last year.

  8. Libration Point says:

    This post and the previous one really drive home your ongoing point about the Jan. 6 investigation’s relative professionalism. Durham seems to have basically done what TV & twitter lawyers have demanded by charging Sussman first and asking questions later, and now has nothing to actually show for it other than a lot of wasted time and money. It’s hard to imagine that immediately arresting any of the Trumps on some small misdemeanor and trying to build from there would go any better.

  10. TXphysicist says:

    During today’s hearing on the question of Trump’s NY civil lawsuit subpoenas, Trump’s defense lawyer, Alina Habba, decided to ask Letitia James if the NY AG office would “go after” Hillary Clinton for spying on Trump Tower.

    I looked up Habba, and judging by her prior work, I think she’s in wayyyyyy over her head, and probably a dyed-in-the-wool True Believer, to boot. But maybe there’s some calculation of optics and press coverage to her stunt today, I dunno.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Being in way over their head seems to be mandatory for anyone working for Trump. Rudy, Sid Powell, Mickey Cohen, etc. It makes them hypnotically dependent on Trump, and his promises of lush payments, few of which materialize.

      Trump has an urgent need for new accountants. Good luck with that. No prepaid fee would be enough for the headaches, the work, or to replace the fees from clients who would leave. The numbers and back-up detail must be thoroughly unreliable or non-existent, and Trump would never allow or pay for all the work required to verify them. Especially if that meant the accountants could never issue any result but another – These numbers are unreliable statement. That leaves the accounting equivalent of another in-over-her-head Alina Habba. Trump’s debt bomb is ticking.

    • Leoghann says:

      Habba is noteworthy in having almost no discoverable background. In her bio at her firm’s website, she describes the firm where she used to work, but only in the most general terms, and appears to take pains not to reveal the firm’s name. She only names a couple of cases that she’s been involved with, and they seem to be pretty small potatoes.

      In general, reading through her firm’s website, I get the same feeling I got from John Pierce’s website. It’s long on spin, but short on meaningful description. Habba is the founding partner, and the managing partner, but she only has one partner in the firm. There’s a raft of attorneys who are “of counsel,” but little indication that they’re anything but page filler.

      She’s based in Bedminster, NJ, so maybe she was introduced to The Donald at his course.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        The latter, according to reports, is exactly right. She was drawn to Bedminster like a moth to a flame, and the flame got her.

        Most lawyers – Tom Hagens aside – brag about their work to get more clients. If there’s not much in Habba’s website – there isn’t, and it’s impossible to determine when she did the work she does brag about – it seems probable that there’s no there there.

        One website lists a recent year income at $210,000. As a ballpark figure, that doesn’t leave a lot after paying one member of staff, rent, telecoms and IT, marketing, and a little T&E. Basically, her website describes a small practice with more ambition than success. That’s the type of personality and success Trump likes: he can easily lord it over them and they come cheap. Per the Red-Headed League, though, beware of staff happy to work for half wages.

      • Geoguy says:

        (I hope I have this right). Habba is married to Matthew Eyet. They both went to Widener U. and both worked at Sandelands Eyet. M. Eyet was at Weiser Mazars before that as a tax associate. I guess he might know some things.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Most lawyers are not so coy about their education or experience. That’s usually a sign they’re fudging it or don’t feel it’s a competitive advantage.

          She’s coy, for example, about where she went to school. Widener Law School in PA seems certain. But one source says she has an undergraduate degree in business from “Harward,” [Harvard?] another says it’s from Lehigh, another gives a third school. She is clearer about having attended an executive program at HBS, which is infinitely easier to obtain. She’s coy (“private”) about her work history, too, but brags about her recent bump in income:

          “ever since she has been appointed as Donald Trump‘s attorney her annual income has raised through the sky. Her estimated salary is $210,000 annually, and her network [sic] is approximately $1 to $1.5 million, according to respectable [anonymous] sources.”

          Managing partners at many firms would not brag about that “salary,” starting with that it’s a salary and not a piece of the action. The language quality in that excerpt is typical of entries about Habba Eyet. From recent news reports, it’s typical of her lawyering, too.

          https://wealthyspy.com/alina-habba/

        • Valley girl says:

          My goodness! Did she write her own entry? That would explain a lot.

          ~Alina also contains experience in various areas of law like family law, construction-related matters and services, financial industry services, and family law. Keeping her hugely successful career in mind, the super lawyer stars list selected Alina Habba for four consecutive years, from 2016 to 2019.~

          Oddly enough, I’ve been thinking about the word “coy” recently, but more in the Andrew Marvell sense.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Glad to see you. I don’t know what she wrote and how much dictation her interviewers took, but in puff pieces, soft interviews, and bio. sketches, descriptions of a subject are often indistinguishable from their own press releases.

          The funny thing is that, for a lawyer for a former President of the United States, and after more than a dozen years of practice, there’s not much about Habba Eyet except in marginal sources like the one I quoted.

          Her practice, like many, seems to be whatever litigation comes in the door. No harm in that. But it’s odd for a former president – if typical for this one – to hire that kind of lawyer.

        • Valley girl says:

          One last note on the language- omg! Maybe she didn’t write this…. I mean, good grief, could she really be THIS stupid ?

          ~Donald Trump Lawsuit
          Alina is recently coming on the news because of her most inconspicuous client Donald Trump. ~

        • Leoghann says:

          Sandelands Eyet was only founded in 2013, and their website is similar to Habba Mendaio. If she’s founding/managing/firstname partner, that $210K/annum “salary” is hard to explain. But so are all these law firm websites that are written in ESL. I feel like I’m being hit up by the loyal son or grieving widow of a Nigerian prince.

          I read a couple of reports today that said Habba and one of Trump’s other lawyers, mostly Habba, lost their shit so badly during court that the judge, bailiff, and other staff had to call time-outs, repeatedly. I’m sure their orange bossman loved it, but how long will judges be willing to countenance that level of misbehavior?

        • Rayne says:

          This does smell like a foreign intelligence operation — assets deployed here for things like laundering money but now reassigned to protect Trump in court.

        • Rayne says:

          I think that’s an error, might even be an intentional plant to sow doubt. Habba and Covino have similar features but Habba has lighter eyes.
          Habba:
          Trump attorney Alina Habba
          Covino:
          Real estate attorney Sharon K. Covino

        • Valley girl says:

          So why do the two pages have identical photos? Not doubting you, just wondering where the “plant” comes in.
          https ://wealthyspy .com/ alina-habba/

          [FYI, breaking the link with blank spaces inserted to avoid accidental clickthrough by community members since we don’t know if that’s a honeypot site. Really don’t want to drive traffic there from here if it is, capisce? /~Rayne]

        • Rayne says:

          Whoever/whatever pulled that page and that site together — what’s “wealthyspy dot com”?

          ADDER — 2:50 pm ET: I went poking around at that site; it has an EXTREMELY thin business model, like almost no advertising, no About Us page, no physical location mentioned, Contact Us is a blank form only. Privacy Policy looks rather banal and common though it refers to Google.co.uk for information about its ad analytics; if the business is in the UK or EU it should provide a pop-up about privacy but it doesn’t do that at all. The Privacy Policy says “Effective date: July 27, 2021.” Domain registration is private through a bargain registrar, physical mailing address used is in Reykjavik Iceland, has been associated with other malware attacks.

          I suggest purging your cache and cookies ASAP and run antivirus/antimalware if you’ve visited the site.

        • Eureka says:

          Their midfaces are also totally different.

          Habba has higher, more prominently bossed cheeks and a rounder (-tipped) dropped nose (vs sharper on Covino).

          Adding: even more noticeable distinctions if you look at Habba photo in thread linked by VG 1:43 PM; also search “Sharon K. Covino” and her additional photos bear this out.

          And LOL I am not going anywhere near “wealth spy” (shivers) so will have to miss out on what’s there.

Comments are closed.