Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Horowitz v. Durham — Dispute Over Russiagate Conclusions

    Horowitz v. Durham — Dispute Over Russiagate Conclusions

    Durham’s team “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.”

    U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia-Trump collusion probe, disagreed with a few aspects of Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report released today.

    “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,” said Durham.

    Durham reminded everyone in his statement that his investigation is not as limited as Horowitz’s investigation.

    Durham’s “investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S.”

    Reports came out in October that Durham’s investigation has become “a full-fledged criminal investigation.”

    The change in Durham’s investigation happened after he “uncovered new evidence” on a trip to Rome with Attorney General Bill Barr:

    Barr reportedly told embassy officials in Italy that he “needed a conference room to meet high-level Italian security agents where he could be sure no one was listening in.”

    A source in the Italian Ministry of Justice told The Daily Beast earlier this month that Barr and Durham were played a taped deposition made by Joseph Mifsud, the professor who allegedly told ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Mifsud reportedly was explaining to investigators in the deposition why people would want to harm him, and why he needed police protection.

    Papadopoulos has suggested he was connected with Mifsud as part of a setup orchestrated by intelligence agencies.

    That distinction “means Durham can subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel fact-finding grand juries.”


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    oldgoat36 | December 9, 2019 at 6:35 pm

    I wonder why is there a position such as the IG when we have seen through numerous iterations of these type of reports and despite finding all kinds of problems, there were no “real” problems.
    If there is to be an investigation into a body of government, why would you have a person who makes their living from that same body, who has ties, who has a vested interest in presenting that organization in the best light possible, doing the investigation?
    Horowitz didn’t disappoint. This is the usual blind as a bat reporting he gave in prior instances. No political bias, mainly because those who were doing these deeds said they have a “higher honor”, so, OK then, you look good…
    There is no justification for the lame conclusions that Horowitz continually gives.
    He is the one to assign intent to wrong doing, and by golly, the guilty party said they didn’t know, so gee, despite all the facts uncovered which say otherwise, they are pure.
    Horowitz is our tax dollars at work. For a report that is a whitewashing that had been delayed for months on end that ends with the conclusion that despite the evidence to say the sky is blue, sorry folks, it’s green with yellow stripes.

    Demonized | December 9, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    Anybody else like to know why a US Attorney made such a statement related to his ongoing criminal investigation?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend