The decade's most triggering comedy
United States Attorney John Durham responded to Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s report on Monday by stating that it was incorrect due to the limited information that it was based on whereas Durham’s criminal investigation is not limited in scope and appears to have uncovered a lot more than Horowitz did.
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said in a statement.
“However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department,” Durham continued. “Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
Durham was selected by Attorney General William Barr to conduct what started out as an administrative review into the origins of the Russia investigation and has ended up turning into a full-fledged criminal investigation after significant evidence was reportedly found that indicated criminal activity had taken place.
The fact that Barr and now Durham have come out and disputed the findings of the inspector general report — which claimed that the FBI investigation was justified and that no bias was found — is significant given Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation in which he has stated that he has access to far more information that essentially changes the findings of the inspector general report.
“Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice,” The New York Times reported in October. “It was not clear what potential crime Mr. Durham is investigating, nor when the criminal investigation was prompted.”
Escalating the administration review into a criminal investigation gives Durham “the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges,” the Times added. “Mr. Durham has indicated he wants to interview former officials who ran the C.I.A. in 2016 but has yet to question either Mr. Brennan or James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence. Some C.I.A. officials have retained criminal lawyers in anticipation of being interviewed.”
Fox News’ Bret Baier reported in early October that “… based on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel.”
“Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham traveled to Italy recently to talk to law enforcement officials there about the probe and have also had conversations with officials in the U.K. and Australia about the investigation, according to multiple sources familiar with the meetings,” Baier added.
In late October, Fox News’ Gregg Re and Catherine Herridge reported that Durham’s investigation had further expanded “based on new evidence uncovered during a recent trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr.”