Prosecutor John Durham’s Scarlett Letter–The Bull Gored Sucking Up To Trump

He made his bones for decades locking up mobsters, public officials and corrupt FBI agents, then his career took a breakneck twist after Donald Trump appointed him United States attorney for Connecticut, spewing then-Attorney General William Barr to appoint a special counsel to investigate the investigators in the Russia 2016 election mess.

John “Bull” Durham’s probe was also messy, swimming in political pressure, demagoguery, taxpayer waste prompting respected prosecutor Nora Dannehy, appointed by Durham, to resign the concocted investigation.

What the hell happened to Durham? so many who knew him wondered, including me who had chronicled his many law enforcement successes. Well, what’s happened to a lot of people in recent years? Anyone surprised about what lurks deep?

Instead of announcing early there’s nothing here, Durham’s persecution smoldered into a self-inflicted wound, the two people he charged acquitted, a once-heralded law enforcement career branded into a Scarlett Letter.

If you want evidence of law enforcement adultery, this is it.

From James Risen, The Intercept:

FOR THREE YEARS, John Durham has essentially been the Justice Department’s Special Counsel in Charge of Owning the Libs.

His long-running inquiry into the government’s performance during the Trump-Russia investigation has often seemed designed to get shoutouts from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson and to go viral on right-wing social media.

John Durham has used the criminal justice system to try to score political points. What he has not done is search for the truth.

Durham has developed and launched just two prosecutions in connection with his probe of the Justice Department and FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia case. Remarkably, neither targeted officials from the Justice Department or the FBI. He still lost both cases.

It is rare for a federal prosecutor to go 0-2, but Durham never really seemed to care about making his cases stick. He targeted people outside the government to stage trials that seemed designed to help prove his pro-Trump bona fides. He chose targets affiliated with what Trump and his supporters have claimed were the evil forces behind the Mueller investigation: the Hillary Clinton campaign and the so-called Steele dossier. Durham prosecuted a lawyer associated with Clinton’s 2016 campaign and a Russian-born informant for Christopher Steele, the retired British intelligence officer who authored the dossier.

In the process, Durham tried to treat a federal courtroom like a cable news studio, where he could verbally attack the Justice Department and the FBI without actually prosecuting any government officials.

Full story here.



  1. What has it been about Trump and loyalty demanded that was so attractive to Americans.
    Current history of the period has little to say about this Russia messing with the 2016 election likely because Trump’s interest was in his effort, his largest numbers, and his win as of no one assisted him.
    So many Republicans seem to have forgotten the values, principals, processes, and traditions of that party while holding their breath for a new wind. And one party rule gets pretty ugly and corrupt if there is no one offering an alternative that calls for respect for all, the importance of unity, and yet the rights that we have general agreement on from the Founders. I have yet to read “Russian Roulette” et al, in hopes of gaining more light on the subject.
    When OIB places a subject like this in his menu, while being unwilling to cover brief comments to the CC on how the management of employment issues and departments in the City can lead to expenses and perhaps more corruption, I will always say that is his right, but how does it serve the Bridgeport taxpayer, voter, subject of one party rule? Time will ultimately tell.

  2. John outside of Trumpism’s attractiveness of whiteness, some Rs, including people of color thinks the Ds are just as corrupt if not more. It’s not a one-party rule if just one part can win the election. 🙂 Althougt the Port is a one party rule (Ds) yet was ask questions. 🙂

    That being said, This political hit peace doesn’t make any sense to me. I mean, Risen stated “Durham never really seemed to care about making his cases stick.” and was not in the search for the truth. Which would suggest to me he tanked the cases. Risen also stated Durham used the criminal justice system to try to score political points with Trump.

    By what means, if the cases were brought to prove the conspiracy against Trump by the Dems? How is tanking the cases in the support of Trump or sucking up to him? At least that’s how I read/see it.

    It is not like the Muller investigation proves Trump’s collusion with Russia to beat Hilary.

    P.S This, I guess, Trump hit peace is on Lennie’s menu because this Democrat’s favorite dish. 🤣

  3. Not sure if an article by Risen in The Intercept regarding this investigation should damn Durham as a prosecutor.
    In my opinion, the Horowitz investigation, Mueller investigation and the Durham investigation highlighted all that’s bad in DC.
    Thought this WSJ column much less partisan and more balanced than most press coverage of Durham –

  4. Fascinating to read current books on the period of 2017-2021 and since from journalists who were covering “the waterfront” in DC and elsewhere. According to Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in THE DIVIDER, at the time of the initial impeachment, the Russia scandal had died at the coverage by the Mueller report, and the public message provided by AG Bill Barr.. Was it a dead matter? Not in the minds of more than a few. Barr ordered an inquiry into the FBI handling of whether the FBI had acted improperly relative to Trump’s Russian ties initially.
    With the appointment of John “Bull” Durham, whose prosecutorial fame was known in CT, “Trump, consumed by grievance, wanted not only vindication but vengeance” from Barr’s ordered inquiry.
    It took the better part of three years to investigate and come up with what seems to have been a weak collection of facts to press two cases in court, lose in each case, and have to state that apparently there was no actionable ‘there’ in those situations. Federal expense? For the benefit of Trump’s ego? Yes, but ultimately there is no escaping such a conclusion. So far time has told this OP-ED story. But perhaps when Trump’s legal dust settles, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine becomes resolved, eyes will turn in interest to what will seem like a simpler time when Trump’s dreams were alive with visions of Miss Universe previewing a Trump Tower in Moscow? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply