On July 31 and August 1, The New York Times published two articles regarding an “Appendix” that was previously classified in Special Advisor John Durham’s report released on May 23, 2023. These reports seem to suggest that legacy media like the Times, Washington Post, and Politico have focused increasingly on the narrow view of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Jonathan Turley argues that Democrats have engaged in one of the most significant political frauds in history, which is now starting to come to light.
The Durham investigation examined why the FBI took minimal action after receiving intelligence about Russia in late July 2016. The newly released appendix contains classified details about the FBI’s assessment of “special information” received from allied nations during the first half of 2016, indicating that Russia had real-time awareness of Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategies in the presidential race.
This appendix was compiled by Durham’s team, although the original source of the claims concerning Russian intelligence remains unclear. The document’s origins, contents, and credibility are subject to scrutiny, raising many questions about its validity and reliability.
Among the key points made in the Times articles are “emails” penned by Leonard Bernardo on July 25 and July 27, 2016. Bernardo was associated with a George Soros-affiliated organization, and his emails were reportedly hacked, leading to correspondence with Clinton’s senior campaign advisor.
It’s important to note that there’s no actual email format provided in the appendix; rather, the alleged emails appear as translated notes from Russian sources, with Durham incorporating these translations into his findings. The July 25 correspondence asserts that Clinton approved a strategy involving “foreign policy advisors.”
A following Russian memo described by Durham includes elements about Clinton’s campaign, hinting at strategies that would aim to distract from any allegations against Clinton regarding electronic communications.
The memo points out that a narrative suggesting Trump’s alignment with Putin was intended to overshadow the controversies surrounding the Clinton campaign. This narrative would also serve to escalate claims about Russian interference during elections, likening it to significant threats against national security.
However, the actual contents of the July 27 email from Bernardo are brief, drawing from the Russian notes, leading many to question its authenticity. Some argue that the Times inaccurately labeled these communications as “fakes,” despite Durham not explicitly asserting that they were fabricated.
Durham categorized them as “composite materials,” indicating that while not entirely genuine, elements of their content could be factually correct, predicting future developments during the next electoral cycle.
The investigation involved delving into various documents to assess the origins and content of the purported emails. Interestingly, analysts who reviewed the emails found them to appear real, a fact which didn’t prompt any action from the FBI at the time.
Durham reportedly reached out to Bernardo, unlike the FBI, which did not engage with him. Bernardo stated he did not recognize the emails attributed to him, noting certain phrasing that seemed foreign to his usual language.
Translating foreign intelligence can be tricky, as ambiguous phrases may lead to misunderstandings, complicating the interpretation of such communications. Bernardo mentioned confusion surrounding references in the emails that he couldn’t pinpoint accurately.
Durham, after interviewing others connected to the campaign, found similar language used in emails not linked directly to Bernardo; instead, it appeared to have been written by Tim Mauer at the Carnegie Endowment.
Julian Smith, a foreign policy advisor to Clinton, was also questioned about her intentions regarding the portrayal of Trump and Russia. She seemed to hedge her statements in a way that could allow for future deniability.
In summary, while acknowledging the murky circumstances surrounding the narratives crafted during the campaign, there remains a notable lack of clarity on why significant steps weren’t taken by the FBI in response to the findings articulated in Durham’s investigation.
