WHY AREN’T REPORTERS HARASSING JOHN DURHAM ON HIS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION? Great question posed by Sundance earlier today: “You know what it looks like, you’ve seen it a thousand times on television … The U.S. attorney is walking into the office from his car and a half dozen cameras and reporters are rushing alongside and asking questions. Have you seen that customary media effort even once since U.S. Attorney Durham was announced as investigating the origins of the Trump campaign surveillance? No, why not?”

Perhaps the answer to that question is that journalists who detest Trump don’t want to know the answers that Durham is uncovering about why the FBI launched its original investigation of allegations of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. The legitimacy of the investigation rests on this narrative, courtesy of the Washington Post’s Phillip Bump:

“The FBI had been informed by the Australian government that a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, had months earlier informed one of their diplomats, Alexander Downer, that he had heard Russia possessed emails incriminating Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 opponent. Papadopoulos came by that knowledge in April, having been informed by a professor named Joseph Mifsud about the emails.”

Odds are Durham is confirming facts related to what I reported in 2018 concerning Downer’s long-standing connections to U.S., British and Chinese intelligence. Downer’s “tip” to the FBI was NOT the origin of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.