The New York Times has a curious article posited today surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham who is doing the deep investigation into DOJ, FBI, CIA and intelligence community political espionage in the 2016 election and early Trump presidency.
CTH readers are very familiar with the granular details of what’s commonly referred to as “spygate”; the unofficial weaponization of the intelligence apparatus against candidate Donald Trump, president-elect Trump, and later President Trump.The Times posts their article about Durham’s investigation against the backdrop of the completed inspector general report on DOJ/FBI misconduct in their FISA exploits.
While the majority of the narrative engineering is oddly irrelevant; and it doesn’t take a long review to notice the Times scribes have a motive to frame Durham’s eventual outcome as adverse to their own political interests; there is one particular paragraph that seems exceptionally curious:
[…] The inspector general’s report makes no substantive reference to Mr. Durham’s investigation. But before the report’s release, Mr. Durham got into a sharp dispute with Mr. Horowitz’s team over a footnote in a draft of the report that seemed to imply that Mr. Durham agreed with all of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions, which he did not, according to people familiar with the matter. The footnote did not appear in the final version of the report. (link)
How would the New York Times know?
Notice the citation: “according to people familiar with the matter”, that is an overly disingenuous attribution considering such a strong declarative accusation.
Something sketchy is afoot.
First, taking the declaration at face value, and ignoring the conflict the narrative engineers appear intent to create, if there is any truth to that statement – the Times is implying IG Michael Horowitz attempted to put words in the mouth of a U.S. attorney?
There’s something between the lines going on here; and if the New York Times is the tip-of-the-defensive-spear… well, that something is likely troublesome for the Coup Crew.
Interesting.
Suspicious Cat remains, well, suspicious…
