Sunday, January 30, 2022

A Public Health Reckoning Is Coming

The last two years will reveal our expert class to be anything but objective, honest, and competent.


“We must learn to live with COVID in the same way we live with flu,” said British Health Secretary Sajid Javid during a Downing Street press conference last week. 

The vaccine of common sense was thus injected into Great Britain’s veins. In so doing, the country stepped out of the COVID tsunami and climbed up to sunnier and clearer peaks.

With the skies ahead clear and calm, mandates and restrictions have now entered the history books. 

The postmortem of the last two years is sure to begin now in earnest. We will thereby be confronted by failure on an epic scale, orchestrated by our expert class. 

Nationally and internationally, too many extreme decisions were made in too short a period by too few people with far too little reflection on the broader impact upon society. 

In pushing for their preferred remedies of lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing—as well as flirting with vaccine passports and mandates—our experts intervened like never before in the proper functioning of a free society. 

They have made themselves the inevitable target of future investigations and potential retribution.

The reason is simple. The costs associated with their preferred and most extreme form of social control have been enormous. The vast majority have taken the brunt of these policies and have been greatly impoverished in the process. 

To pay for the lockdown, our experts relied on the support of the Bank of England. From March to November 2020, during the first phase of social repression, the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street printed £450 billion pounds (the equivalent of just over $600 billion). Taken together, at close to £900 billion, the Bank of England manufactured the equivalent of 40 percent of our gross domestic product while millions were asked to stop working.  

In the meantime, Britain’s national debt skyrocketed, growing by a quarter to 103 percent of gross domestic product in less than two years. 

As night follows day, inflation took off. 

As the Office of Budgetary Responsibility reminded us in a research paperreleased on December 21: “[H]igher than expected debt interest costs reflect higher than expected RPI inflation in recent months, which increased to a 20-year high of 7.1 percent in November.”

To put these figures into context, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) tells us that household income has grown by seven percent over the entire 10 year period ending in 2020, or 0.8 percent per year over the decade. 

Our experts have been responsible for generating so much inflation that the median family was forced to travel back in time, wealth-wise, to the great financial crash of 2008-2009 in real terms. 

As the ONS tells us the poor, the young, and the old have grown markedly poorer in a very short space of time. 

This mass impoverishment, led by our inoculated and protected class, is set to continue. 

With interest rates currently at 0.25 percent and RPI inflation over 7 percent, bringing inflation under control would require a 3,000 percent increase in current base rate, at the very least. 

As the Treasury’s “Autumn Budget and Spending Review” published in October tells us, “the fiscal impact of a one percentage point rise in interest rates in the next year would be six times greater than it was just before the financial crisis, and almost twice what it was before the pandemic,” adding that “one percentage point rise in interest rates . . . is estimated to cost an extra £20.3 billion in 2024-25, rising to £22.8 billion in 2026-27.”

To defeat inflation, in other words, interest rates would have to be raised to over 7 percent. The debt repayment would then be close to £150 billion ($201 billion) per year at least. The equivalent, it turns out, to the government’s current spending on education, defense, policing, and transportation. In short, it will not happen.

Some will say that emergency measures were inevitable. There was no alternative. Lockdowns, restrictions, and mandates were required because COVID was unknown. 

Honest research will show, however, that many paths were open; that cheap solutions were available; that many lives could have been spared in preventive care along with our freedoms; and that it is our democracy that saved England from committing to further erosions of civil liberty. 

Those who took so many arbitrary decisions, often so callously, have succeeded over a short period in largely controlling the official version of events. 

However, too many people, across too many disciplines have seen their livelihoods, their families, and their reputations smothered over the two year period to January 2022 for the center to hold for long. 

In the coming years, the pressure to release data, to understand this international Blitzkrieg against common sense, will become ever greater. 

Already, we see demands from the British Medical Journal on January 19 for the release of all data available regarding vaccines, treatments, and policy decisions. 

The editors of this eminent journal wrote, “it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust ‘in the system.’” 

They added that “transparency is the key to building trust and an important route to answering people’s legitimate questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines and treatments and the clinical and public health policies established for their use.” 

Further, the British Medical Journal reminded us, “Big pharma is the least trusted industry” in the United States; that at least three of the many companies making COVID-19 vaccines “have past criminal and civil settlements costing them billions of dollars,” with one having pleaded guilty to fraud. 

In Switzerland the federal data protection and information commissioner,Adrian Lobsiger, said his office has a duty to make contracts with vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer and Moderna more transparent upon request, against huge efforts from the pharmaceutical industry to protect secrecy. The Swiss courts support the public information commissioner’s recommendation, and so will the public. 

In the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—JFK’s nephew and a long-standing investigative crusader—has written The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. It is among Amazon’s top selling books and joins a growing number of dissections that will allow the Western world to come to grips with the pandemic, the turns it took, and where the lives of millions of ordinary people fit in the grand scheme of things. 

Questions about why the most expensive, extreme, and divisive avenues were sought when much better alternatives were available are sure to be at the center of this long-overdue quest for truth. 

As more data are released and more investigated, it is very possible that the last two years will reveal our expert class to be anything but objective, honest, and competent. Quite the contrary. 


X22, On the Fringe, and more-Jan 30


 

Evening, here's tonight's news:


Bad Portents for Biden


The ancient world was full of signs and portents that the high and mighty ignored at their peril. When, for example, Xerxes set out on his campaign against Greece in 480 B.C., Herodotus tells us that “a great portent” appeared. 

Xerxes paid no attention to it, however, although it was quite easy to interpret. A horse gave birth to a hare, which clearly symbolized the fact that Xerxes was about to lead an expedition against Hellas with the greatest pride and magnificence, but would return to the same place running for his life.

That was about the size of, too. At the Battle of Salamis later that year, the Greeks delivered a crushing blow to the Persian navy. Xerxes decided to retreat with the bulk of his army back to Persia. It was a disaster. He lost most of his men to disease, famine, and exhaustion. It was a pitiful remnant that arrived at the Hellespont nearly two months later, only to find the bridges they had built at the outset of their campaign utterly wrecked. Xerxes was rowed across the channel, enraged but broken. 

I thought of that episode the other day when I read of the dramatic collapse of a bridge in Pittsburgh just before Joe Biden was due to arrive to rally his troops for a further assault on American independence and prosperity. 

That wasn’t how the agenda was described, of course. No, it was supposed to be the “unofficial launch of a new strategy the President devised to shore up his political fortunes by changing how he spends his time.”

In particular, we are told, Biden will be spending less time wrangling with Senators Kyrsten Sinema (D- Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D- W.Va.) over why they refuse to rubber-stamp his agenda and more time “jetting to places where he can highlight his achievements to ordinary Americans.” I do like to think about what “highlighting his achievements” might mean. I think this is where logicians start talking about “null sets.” Bridge collapse or no bridge collapse, however, I don’t think that was meant ironically. To quote Donald Trump, “Sad!” 

But this just underscores the uncomfortable possibility that, when it comes to Joe Biden, the signs and portents are addressed as much to us as to him. 

Biden talks about infrastructure. We’re the ones that have to drive over the crumbling bridges. 

We read the news. We know about Biden’s plummeting poll numbers. We know that inflation is out of control. We know that the stock market is skittish if not verging on panic. We look on, amazed, as the president of the United States all but invites Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. Memo to the president: When it comes to armies violating the borders of sovereign nations a “minor incursion” is analogous to being “a little bit pregnant.”

“The White House quickly tried to walk back the remark,” but then is there a remark that Biden has made in his tenure as president that the White House has not “quickly tried to walk back”?

Sometimes, it seems, they simply ignore the reports. For example, the report that Biden warned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Kyiv would be “sacked” by Russian troops. Question for the class: Does Joe Biden know what it means to “sack” a city? Extra credit: What is the difference between a “minor incursion” and a “sacking”? Be specific. 

I don’t think we are quite sure whether Biden actually said what he was reported to have said because, to date, the White House has not released a transcript of the call. In other words, we have yet another instance of the old Democratic Double-Standard Delight at work. Donald Trump has a call with President Zelensky. Pudgy weasel Alexander Vindman leaks details of the call and thus jump-starts the preposterous impeachment of Trump. 

The White House denies that Biden said what he is reported to have said, but isn’t there an easy way to settle it once and for all? Release the transcript of the call. This is an idea that Representatives Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have had. 

“The White House must release the transcript of President Biden’s call with President Zelensky immediately,” Stefanik and Jordan demanded. “It was House Democrats, led by Chairman [Adam] Schiff and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, who spent months wasting American taxpayer dollars on a purely partisan attack propped up by their selectively-edited call between President Trump and President Zelensky. Joe Biden himself called on President Trump to ‘release the transcript . . . let the House see it.’” 

Have the bookies spoken yet about the odds of this happening? 

Stefanik and Jordan are right: “Democrats are putting another double standard on display by not releasing the transcript of President Biden’s call with Zelensky. To paraphrase our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if there is nothing wrong with the call, this should not be a problem.” 

No, I’m not holding my breath, either. But it’s worth noting that there are not only double standards at play here. There is also the other Democratic speciality, projection—the habit of doing yourself what you accuse others of doing. It turns out that it was Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, who was “colluding” with the Russians. 

Donald Trump was alleged to have been profiting from foreign connections. There is no evidence of that. But there is plenty of evidence that during Joe Biden’s vice presidency, the Biden family raked in some $31 million from “Chinese individuals of the highest rank at the highest levels of the Red Chinese government.”

Joe Biden is a walking purveyor of signs and portents. He came to office promising to restore unity and reestablish a sense of “normalcy.” He has done the opposite. The public has gone from being concerned to being afraid. They despair at our porous borders, the empty shelves in our grocery stores, the skyrocketing prices of everything from food and clothing to cars, hotels, housing, and energy. They listen in the night and hear Putin’s and Xi’s saber rattling, the ravings of Iranian mullahs, sounds that are not soothed by the incoherent mumblings of the president of the United States. The omens are everywhere. 

Joe Biden came to town bearing a double-decker ice-cream smile. I suspect he is going to leave like Xerxes—confused, battered, alone. Perhaps he’ll have to be rowed across the Potomac back to Delaware if our bridges keep collapsing. I suppose the rest of us will be on the other shore, licking our wounds. 


When Progressives Side With Criminals

Democratic politicians are ignoring the daily murders and robberies and carjackings of their poorest constituents

Los Angeles County DA George Gascon (Getty)

The father of a UCLA grad student, Brianna Kupfer, who was stabbed to death last week, is giving voice to the gut-wrenching human toll of the violent crime wave ravaging the nation — and the social and political forces enabling it.

“What’s endemic in our society right now is that everyone seems oriented on giving back rights and bestowing favor on people that rob others of their rights,” said the grieving dad on Fox News.

Brianna, a graduate student and design consultant, was found dead by a customer at the furniture store where she worked. On Wednesday, Los Angeles police identified her suspected killer, a 31-year-old career criminal named Shawn Laval Smith who was out on $1,000 bail for a misdemeanor. And many, like Brianna’s father Todd Kupfer, are tying her death to the policies of LA’s progressive DA, George Gascón, who has reduced incarceration and campaigned on no longer filing charges for offenses related to mental health, poverty, or homelessness.

How did we get here?

As is so often the case, there were good intentions at play — specifically, an attempt to correct a real ill. Back in the ’80s, in the midst of a crime wave fueled by the crack epidemic, Congress passed legislation that effectively criminalized being black. New laws imposed a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for possessing or trafficking crack — which is cheaper and thus favored by poor people — versus powder cocaine — favored by the rich; the result was that over 80 percent of those imprisoned for crack were black. In 1994, with crime still on the rise, Bill Clinton passed a crime bill that imposed harsher prison sentences at the federal level, provided states with more money to build prisons, and escalated the war on drugs. Mass incarceration soon followed, disproportionately targeting black Americans. In the 2000s, New York’s police started to “stop and frisk” people they suspected of being criminals. Ninety percent of those stopped were black or Latino, and 70 percent of them innocent.

We now know better. President Obama reduced the disparity between crack and cocaine to 18 to 1. Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional. And President Trump’s First Step Act was just the latest proof that ending mass incarceration now has bipartisan support.

But while we still have a way to go to ensure our criminal justice system treats everyone equally and fairly, progressives have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction and are currently in the midst of a massive — and deadly — overcorrection.

We are once again living through a spike in violent crime. The US murder rate rose 30 percent between 2019 and 2020, the biggest single-year increase in a hundred years. Aggravated assault rose too, by 12 percent. And 12 major cities broke annual homicide records in 2021, five of them surpassing 2020’s highs.

But while we once made the mistake of trying to solve crime with discriminatory over-policing and a war on drugs, progressives today are responding to spiking murder rates with the exact opposite mistake: Progressives are voting in district attorneys who campaign on not prosecuting crimes. Democratic politicians are ignoring the daily murders and robberies and carjackings of their poorest constituents. And when they aren’t totally erasing crime from view, leftist journalists and activists are routinely downplaying it. And in their attempt to right the wrongs of the past and protect the rights of the accused, progressives are erasing their victims.

Brianna’s father joins a long list of parents robbed of their children — many of them mourning little kids. 41 kids were killed in Philadelphia in 2021. 261 children were the victims of gunfire in Chicago. And they were four times as likely to be black than white. George Floyd’s 4-year-old niece, who marched for racial justice along with a nation horrified by her uncle’s murder by police, was shot in the torso while asleep in her bed. By the grace of God, she managed to survive a punctured lung and three cracked ribs. “Daddy, I’ve been hit,” she said to her father, waking up in a pool of blood.

Then there are the less deadly but highly publicized crimes — a spate of “smash and grabs” in luxury stores, people walking out of pharmacies with garbage bags full of stolen goods — that undermine the rule of law and the sense that following laws matters.

Where is the outrage? Where are the elected officials? Why is there nothing on liberal mainstream news channels about the epidemic of child murders?

“We have a lot of politicians that somehow forgot about people and think the key to getting elected is to support the lowest rung of our society and to give them rights and somehow that’s the answer to getting votes,” Todd Kupfer told Fox News.

He’s right: progressives aren’t just ignoring crime. They are voting for it — all but condoning it by electing district attorneys who promise a softer approach to prosecution. Progressive prosecutors like Gascón in Los Angeles, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Alvin Bragg in Manhattan have all in their campaigns and their tenures emphasized pulling back on prosecution. Boudin campaigned on a “decarceration platform” and has made good on that promise: charges for theft and petty theft declined by double digits under his watch. Over in Chicago, Foxx dismissed all chargesagainst nearly 30 percent of felony defendants in her first year in office. Foxx and Boudin both said shoplifters would only face misdemeanor charges for anything under $1,000 or $800 of theft. And in New York, Bragg ordered his prosecutors to stop seeking prison sentences for armed robberies, drug dealing, and even gun possession.

Moreover, bail reform efforts—desperately needed to combat the disparities faced by the poor versus the rich in the criminal justice system — have resulted in shocking recidivism rates. New data found that 23 percent New Yorkers placed on “supervised release” were rearrested for felonies, and another 18 percent for misdemeanors. Darrell Brooks, the Waukesha murderer who plowed his SUV into a Christmas parade, was out on bail after being charged with domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, and even bail jumping.

It’s not just crime. The progressive position today seems to be to take the side of the mentally ill over the poor residents whose neighborhoods and public transportation they sometimes terrorize. It’s to take the side of homeless encampments—rather than the poor children whose only greenery is now colonized by them.

High on the scent of their own virtue, rich white elites with acres of their own private property are voting in politicians and prosecutors who allow the homeless to rob poor children of their parks and beaches — the only outdoor space where they were they can play. People with two SUVs in their driveway are voting to allow mentally ill people to threaten working class people riding the subways and buses they themselves never use.

In the name of racial justice, progressives are sentencing poor black children to live in neighborhoods where bullets fly into their little beds.

It’s important for us as a society to insist that nonviolent drug offenses should not rob a young black man of his future. But it is equally important that we reject those who impose a veritable taboo on talking about crime when it’s committed by people from “marginalized communities” or in liberal bastions.

We must reject those who refuse to protect poor neighborhoods from career criminals preying on the most vulnerable. We must fight for the children of those who don’t have the luxury of living in gated communities with private police forces.

When we fail to, then their blood is on our hands.




Has Peter Strzok testified before a Durham grand jury?

And - what Durham has collected thus far




The Evidence Thus Far.

In this post I’ll be detailing the evidence, testimony, and documents we know – or can assume – Special Counsel John Durham has obtained during his investigation.

By no means is this an exhaustive list; certainly, he has more information, documents, correspondence, etc. than we realize. There are unknown witnesses who have testified before a grand jury or have been interviewed by Durham’s team. There are issues he’s investigating out of the public knowledge. His investigation is remarkably tight-lipped. As far as we know, they aren’t leaking to the press for publicity or to put pressure on their targets. (Compare that to the likely leak from Special Counsel Mueller’s team that they had enough evidence to charge Flynn’s son, which was reported just as they were trying to get Flynn to plead guilty to the false statements charge.)

Some of this information is organized by category. At other times it is organized by entity or Defendant. Sometimes both. For research purposes, I will probably come back to this and provide updates so we have a running list of what has been done.  

Here is what we know so far.

Grand Jury Testimony. The following witnesses (some identified by name; others given general descriptions in Durham’s filings) have testified before a grand jury. The Government’s Discovery Update in the Sussmann case, filed 1/25/2022, provides some of this information at pages 6-7.

  1. Former FBI General Counsel James Baker.

  2. A former FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence. We are confident this is Bill Priestap, to whom Baker relayed the Alfa Bank materials after it was provided by Michael Sussmann. See Baker’s 10/3/2018 House testimony at page 100.

  3. Peter Strzok (likely). The 1/25/22 Sussmann filing by Durham states there has been grand jury testimony by “A former FBI Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence.” We conclude this is probably Peter Strzok. Baker testified that he might have contacted “Pete Strzok or Bill Priestap” after receiving the documents from Sussmann.  See Baker’s 10/3/2018 House testimony at page 99. Strzok wrote that he had a “minor role” in these events. We asked Strzok about this; he hasn’t responded. 

  4. Daniel Jones (likely). Back in October 2020, Dexter Filkins with the New Yorker reported that Durham had “asked” Jones to give testimony before a grand jury. Jones is a former staffer for Diane Feinstein who, per the Daily Caller, secured $50 million in funding to investigate, with Fusion GPS and Steele Russian interference with the 2016 election.

  5. Charles Dolan (likely). Dolan is the Clinton ally “source” of Steele primary subsource Igor Danchenko. We conclude he has testified before a grand jury based on statements within the Danchenko indictment (such as Dolan stating the Clinton Campaign did not direct his interactions with Danchenko and other Russian nationals).

  6. An FBI Special Agent who served as case agent for the FBI’s Alfa Bank investigation. Identity currently unknown.

  7. An FBI Headquarters Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Alfa Bank investigation. Identity currently unknown.

  8. Two former employees of DARPA (identified as Agency-1 in the Sussmann indictment). This NYT article explains DARPA’s relationship with Georgia Tech, and how Georgia Tech researchers worked with Rodney Joffe.  

  9. Eight current and former employees of the CIA (identified as “Agency-2” in the Sussmann indictment.) This would likely include Caroline Krass, a John Brennan ally who was the CIA General Counsel at the time.

  10. Eight current and former employees of Neustar (identified as “Internet Company-1” in the Sussmann indictment).

  11. Four current employees of Packet Forensics, LLC and VOSTROM Holdings Inc. (Likely “Internet Company-2” and “Internet Company-3” in the Sussmann indictment.)

  12. The former chairman of Perkins Coie.

  13. A former employee of the Clinton Campaign.

  14. Four current and former employees of Georgia Tech.

  15. An employee of Rodney Joffe.

Some observations about the grand jury testimony:

First, by no means is that a comprehensive list. Durham’s scope covers more that what some of these witnesses can offer – such as whether he continues to look into the activities and investigations of the team working for Special Counsel Mueller.

Second, the testimony of Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap is obviously significant. The subject matter of that testimony is the relevant question. Was it limited to the Alfa Bank allegations, or did Durham dig deeper?

We should operate under the assumption that it’s the latter and that both Strzok and Priestap were asked about the inception of Crossfire Hurricane. According to the 2019 IG Report, “Priestap authorized the opening of Crossfire Hurricane” and advised against providing defensive briefings to the Trump campaign. Priestap also approved all of the confidential human source operations against the Trump campaign – which would include the use of informant Stefan Halper.

Strzok was involved in these early stages as well, having received information from the Australians regarding the Papadopoulos/Mifsud conversation that occurred in May 2016 (review the FBI’s summary of their Mifsud interview here) and being privy, according to Strzok, to the FBI’s purported “strong corroborating information indicating that senior officials in the Russian government were responsible for directing attacks on the 2016 U.S. elections, including the hack of the DNC.” It was Strzok who “drafted and approved the opening” Electronic Communication for Crossfire Hurricane. He eventually “managed Crossfire Hurricane.” Strzok also approved the individual investigations of Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and George Papadopoulos. (Of course, this is just a summary of Priestap and Strzok’s involvement in the issues Durham is investigating.)

With that information in mind, recall that in 2019, the otherwise tight-lipped Durham cast doubt on the predication and opening of Crossfire Hurricane after the IG Report was released.

Interviews. Our next focus will be the interviews Durham and his team have conducted. For the most part this relies on court filings; again, this list is not exhaustive. Some of these people have also testified before a grand jury. These include:

  1. Durham’s interview with Steven Schrage – who previously worked under Stefan Halper. This includes Durham’s review of records and recordings relating to Halper (confirmed here at Matt Taibbi’s Substack).

  2. Baker, Strzok, and Priestap.

  3. More than 24 current and former FBI employees. This would likely include testimony from FBI Agent William Barnett, who believed Mueller’s focus on Flynn was “used as a means to ‘get Trump.’”

  4. Joseph Mifsud. Recall Barr and Durham’s trip to Italy.

  5. A former chairman of Perkins Coie.

  6. A former employee of the Clinton Campaign.

  7. Current and former employees of DARPA and the CIA.

  8. A February 12, 2021 interview with Georgia Tech researcher Angelos Keromytis. Confirmed through a FOIA by RyanM.

  9. Current and former employees of Neustar, Packet Forensics, LLC and VOSTROM Holdings Inc. One employee of Rodney Joffe.

  10. Charles Dolan.

Documents/Evidence/Grand Jury Subpoenas for Records. Then we get to the documents Durham possesses. While this is not an exclusive list, court filings confirm he has the following records (or records from the following persons/entities):

  1. The Clinton Campaign. Grand jury subpoenas for documents were issued to the Clinton Campaign as recently as September 2021. Source: CNN. Durham already possesses at least some Clinton Campaign records. Recall that Durham has stated the Clinton Campaign and “multiple former employees of that campaign” are in “matters before the Special Counsel.”

  2. Hillary for America. In the January 25, 2022 filing in the Sussmann case, Durham cites to having received documents from “a political organization.” We believe this is Hillary for America, which helped pay for the Steele dossiers.

  3. Perkins Coie. Durham already has Perkins Coie billing records, notes, and e-mails. The e-mails include correspondence with Fusion GPS and the Clinton Campaign.

  4. Neustar, Packet Forensics, LLC, and VOSTROM Holdings Inc.

  5. Georgia Tech.

  6. Baker’s two phones (previously in possession of OIG).

  7. Mifsud’s phones.

  8. A public relations firm that advised Perkins Coie about Sussmann’s meeting with Baker.

  9. Phone logs for Baker and Priestap. Likely Peter Strzok phone logs as well. Phone logs from eight current or former FBI employees. Phone logs between Sussmann and FBI personnel.

  10. Nearly 400 e-mails between Perkins Coie and the FBI.

  11. FBI/CIA notes regarding the Sussmann 2016 and 2017 meetings with the agencies’ general counsel.

  12. Internal FBI e-mails and messages. The Sussmann filing states Durham has these relevant to Sussmann, lending a credible belief that Durham directed the FBI to produce internal messages/e-mails relating to his other areas of inquiry.

  13. Records/documents/evidence collected by IG Horowitz in his review of the Carter Page FISAs.

  14. Records/documents/evidence relating to the OIG matter presented by Sussmann and Joffe.

  15. FBI Inspection Division Materials. Durham has requested, but not yet received, “the interview reports and associated documents for a number of current and former FBI personnel who were interviewed by the Inspection Division” relating to Crossfire Hurricane.

  16. All FISA records relating to Danchenko’s “Russian Sub-Srouce-1,” identified as Olga Galkina. Chuck Ross reported: “The IG report indicates that the FBI had Section 702 coverage on Galkina, which would have allowed the agency to surveil her communications.”

Igor Danchenko (Steele’s primary subsource). Based on the Danchenko indictment and later court filings, it appears that Durham was able to collect the following documents and communications from or relating to Danchenko:

  1. All FBI interviews with Igor Danchenko. The significance of this? The DOJ Inspector General apparently was not provided with all these interviews.

  2. Danchenko’s communications (texts, e-mails, etc.). This includes (1) Danchenko’s correspondence with Christopher Steele; (2) his correspondence with Charles Dolan, who we would learn was Danchenko’s source; (3) his communications with his subsource Olga Galkina.

Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele. Finally, we get to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele. Based on what we have reviewed, Durham possesses:

  1. Fusion GPS correspondence with Perkins Coie.

  2. Fusion GPS internal discussions about Trump/Russia research.

  3. Fusion GSP interactions with the press.

  4. Fusion GPS correspondence with Rodney Joffe.

  5. Fusion GPS invoices/payments.

  6. All of Christopher Steele’s correspondence with his sources, including Igor Danchenko. For background, here are our reports on the Fusion GPS e-mailsand Fusion’s efforts to conceal the e-mails

But wait, there’s more.

Durham is reportedly looking into the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation and into the investigation run Special Counsel Mueller - which may include their representations to various courts and the destruction of evidence/government property by Andrew Weissmann, et al (the phone wiping controversy). Whether those areas of inquiry produced anything of note remains to be seen. 

Finally, all of what we described likely encompasses millions of pages of documents. Durham will produce over half a million pages of documents in the Sussmann case alone. And the investigation includes more records and more testimony than we are aware. While we prefer to see results, perhaps the scope can inspire confidence. Perhaps.


The Great Censorship Boomerang

Suppressing negative information about a product doesn’t build trust—and much of the distrust surrounding the COVID vaccine can be traced directly back to pro-vaccine misinformation.


Juniper loves Milk Bone dog biscuits. Yet if you push one into her mouth, she will immediately spit it out until she has the opportunity to inspect the item being forced upon her. Understandably, Juniper assumes that I would not force feed her unless there was something wrong with the item. 

This simple exchange with my dog reminds me of a little-noticed statistic now published by the CDC: 60 percent of Americans eligible for the booster have yet to obtain the third jab. In spite of the fact that all American adults are now eligible, 6 in 10 Americans who voluntarily took the vaccine now hesitate before accepting a third shot. While Americans initially rushed to obtain the booster at the rate of 1 million per day, that number has begun to drop sharply. 

For many Americans, the booster promoters have, ironically, stoked skepticism through their heavy-handed mandates, shaming, and censorship. The outrage and propaganda directed at anything that might cast doubt on the vaccine or other pandemic mitigation measures has had exactly the opposite effect that the scolds intended. 

To illustrate, imagine you had to buy the vaccine online only to find out that the vaccine producers censor all of the one and two star reviews. We all read the negative reviews to reassure ourselves before making a purchase. No product is perfect, but we gain more confidence in the good reviews after reading the bad reviews. But when platforms censor reviews, we assume those concerns must worry the people most knowledgeable about the product.

The kerfuffle over Joe Rogan provides an instructive example. A group of doctors published an open letter to Spotify to call for the deplatforming of the most successful podcast in the world. The doctors were careful to accuse Rogan of spreading “misinformation,” an Orwealian term that doesn’t exactly mean “untrue,” or “lying.” The censorship urged by these doctors isn’t limited to combatting incorrect statements by Rogan, but a total destruction of his ability to say anything (true or not) in the future. 

What exactly has Rogan said that justifies this censorship? Rogan, according to the letter, “repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine.” That sounds more like a defense of faith to justify punishing heretics. 

So what exactly are these misleading and false claims? For the most part, the letter failed to identify specific claims Rogan made about COVID and/or the vaccines that the doctors considered false. Instead of taking issue with specific factual claims, the pro-censorship doctors want to destroy Rogan because his podcasts “damage public trust in scientific research and sow doubt in the credibility of data-driven guidance offered by medical professionals.”

But the letter did provide a few examples of Rogan’s “misinformation.” Rogan opposed vaccination of children. That’s a policy choice, not a scientific conclusion. There are legitimate concerns over whether the vaccines pose a greater health risk to children than the virus. The World Health Organization effectively confirmed this, writing, “Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, the priority should be to fully vaccinate older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.” 

One of Rogan’s guests promoted ivermectin as a treatment for COVID and Rogan himself noted that he used the drug among a litany of therapeutics when he got sick last year. A recent study published in Cureus concluded, “In a citywide ivermectin program with prophylactic, optional ivermectin use for COVID-19, ivermectin was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates from COVID-19.” One can argue whether Cureus is a reliable source of information. But the study purported to use 223,128 subjects using propensity score matching. Rebuttal, not censorship, is the proper response to this kind of data and research.

Rogan has also questioned whether the vaccines work as initially advertised. He has observed that people who have had the vaccine and booster are getting sick anyway. That’s undeniably true based on the data, which verifies my personal observation of people I know who took the vaccines, wore the masks, and caught COVID anyway. At the time most Americans first took the vaccines, the public was being told that the vaccines were 94 percent effective in stopping transmission of the virus. One source claimed the Moderna vaccine was 100 percent effective. That message has changed radically, making some wonder whether they took the vaccine under false information.

There’s a growing sense that the backlash has begun to pick up steam. Canadian truckers rebelling against vaccine mandates have staged an historic demonstration convoy to Ottawa. The convoy attracted so many protesting truck drivers that it stretched to nearly 45 miles. Court victories in the United States have further emboldened vaccine skeptics to delay or resist taking the next shot.

So much of the distrust of the vaccine can be traced directly back to the pro-vaccine . . . well, misinformation

Only recently, two Supreme Court justices exhibited how misinformed the public has become on COVID. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in—in serious condition and many on ventilators.” The liberal factcheck.org was forced to admit that there were at the time only 4,700 hospitalized children who were COVID positive. But even that small sample was not necessarily in the hospital because of COVID. 

Justice Stephen Breyer said that there were “750 million new cases”—that is, more than double the entire U.S. population—in one day. The real number was closer to 750,000. Thus, the outrage over COVID misinformation has an undeniable bias. Only misinformation that increases skepticism over mandates is objectionable. Anything that stokes fear—regardless of its truthfulness—is left undisturbed to misinform the public. 

There are adverse side effects from the vaccines. All vaccines have side effects, but not to the same degree. Thus, every vaccine requires a cost-benefit analysis for the consumer. But, as noted by the Wall Street Journal, public inquiry and debate over this cost-benefit analysis has been stymied by the politicized information policies of social media. Again, censoring negative information about a product doesn’t build trust.

The good news is that the Omicron variant may be ending the pandemic. It spreads incredibly quickly in spite of all of the anti-COVID measures pushed by conventional wisdom. The experience of South Africa may provide some clues about what to expect next. After its initial experience with a rapid spread of Omicron in December, active cases have plummeted. As the new cases in the United States begin to drop, there’s every reason to hope that the public emergency will recede as natural immunity continues to climb.

The political fallout in the aftermath of the pandemic is difficult to predict. For many Americans who suffered under the lockdowns, mandates, and masks, the pandemic will end with them getting the virus anyway. Some will undoubtedly ask whether two years of sacrifices helped anything. While the Biden Administration declares victory, it will undoubtedly be haunted by old footage of candidate Biden blaming every death during the Trump Administration on the man in the White House. With the Biden-era devastation exceeding the Trump-era numbers, a Biden victory lap may not inspire gratitude.