In Rare Act of Journalism, NYT Cold-Calls DC Think Tanks and Discovers John Durham Subpoenaed Brookings Institute
On Monday, The New York Times published a story that caught many across the United States by surprise regarding the DOJ’s investigation of John Durham’s investigation into the Obama Department of Justice entitled. As you may recall, “Crossfire Hurricane” was launched during the Trump administration aiming to find the origin of the Russian Hoax investigation that dominated legacy media outlets while also distracting the nation toward the latter portion of 2019 of the real dangers we faced in COVID-19.
Additionally, the Times also reported back in February, Left-leaning Brookings Institution, had produced records to Durham in response to a subpoena related to former Brookings employee named Igor Danchencko. The Times further reported the subpoena was issued December 31, 2020, and the General Counsel for Brookings confirmed that it had complied earlier this year.
This information was procured from Brookings as the NYT reporters were cold-calling DC area think tanks wondering if they had been contacted by Durham. It’s highly unlikely the Times was the beneficiaries of a leak about the existence of said subpoena inside Durham’s probe since there have been none since Crossfire Hurricane’s formation began. Honestly, I’m astonished that someone at the NYT was making a rare attempt at ‘journalisming.’
As Red State’s Shipwreckedcrew detailed, “The existence of this subpoena, the subject of the subpoena, and the fact that Brookings had produced documents in response to the subpoena is information that has been put out by Brookings.”
Surprisingly, the NYT did provide a few pieces of data regarding the investigation and the path Durham’s team seems to be pursuing. Igor Danchenko has been attributed as being the “primary source” for Christopher Steele. The former MI6 agent provided several “memos” to the FBI which were published within the “Steele Dossier.”
Ultimately, in 2009 and 2010, the FBI had information leading it to believe that Danchenko, who worked for Brookings at the time, had made inquiries regarding the Obama administration’s desire to sell certain information they felt was vital as the Trump administration was about to transition into power. The FBI labeled Igor a likely intelligence operative connected to Russian intelligence that resulted in a counterintelligence investigation being opened against him.
Danchenko claimed to have an extensive network of contacts in Russia. Thus, Steele supposedly employed Danchenko gathering intel from business associates. This work also included information on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Efforts to keep Danchenko’s identity a secret were detailed within the Steele Dossier.
It wasn’t long after this that FBI agents connected the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. However, the FBI was undeterred by the obvious evidence that Steele’s information wasn’t reliable or true. Danchenko himself could no longer be viewed as a reliable source given his previously identified ties to Russian intelligence.
The Times story offers an interesting revelation:
Mr. Durham has also asked questions that suggested a focus on skepticism about how the F.B.I. approached issues that might have undermined the dossier’s credibility as a basis for wiretap applications, people familiar with the inquiry said.
For example, Mr. Durham’s team is said to have asked why the F.B.I., after identifying Mr. Danchenko as a major source for the dossier and interviewing him in early 2017, did not tell the surveillance court that he had once been the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.
Note that these are not questions Durham’s investigators would have posed to anyone at Brookings — likely an FBI attorney and someone who is officially cooperating with the Special Counsel’s probe.
Sadly, instances like this cause investigations to increase in duration especially since it’s likely the Biden administration will stop Durham from proceeding. Regardless of the explanation, Republicans will rightly view it as an admission of wrongdoing.
More than any other fact or set of facts, the information provided to the FBI during the Danchenko interview and, especially combined with his checkered history making any previous implication of subversive activity, made it improper for the FBI to push forward. Their investigation would have likely and should have resulted in a shut down. There’s no impetus to move forward. Think of the number of items the American people would have known about had this not occurred.
What’s certain is Durham is quite intrigued as to why this did not happen. Further, he’s going to pursue the motivation(s) for its continuation for an additional 5 months. This is probably just the beginning.
Danchenko should be prosecuted based on his answers provided during questioning conducted by the FBI. Gaining Danchenko’s cooperation against others would be a major and logical next step.
The American people, whether some of them want it or not, deserve answers.
You can contact Bennett through The Liberty Loft’s website. Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft’s newsletter. If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft and conservative media.
Content syndicated from TheLibertyLoft.com with permission.
