Big picture: Durham was asked to investigate whether crimes were committed when investigating Trump. And he was asked to prosecute any such crimes.
The introduction tells us that:
The Office has concluded its investigation into whether "'any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counterintelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump."
There are no new prosecutions as a result of this report. No high level F.B.I. or intelligence official has been charged with a crime. There are no major new revelations. The only two people Durham charged were people who lied to the F.B.I., not people who worked for the F.B.I. or on any of these investigations.
And Durham did not find evidence of politically motivated misconduct. I think Lawfare does a good job of outlining the history of this investigation:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/notes-durha ... ding-diary
The FBI had claimed—and Special Counsel Robert Mueller had affirmed—that the whole thing started when an Australian diplomat named Alexander Downer provided the U.S. with information that a Trump campaign advisor named George Papadopoulos had volunteered in a London meeting over drinks that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” But a bunch of Trump supporters ginned up a set of conspiracy theories that this was not how the investigation started, that it all started with Steele, or some secret informant, or that the CIA was involved somehow. Barr had been quite indiscreet about his own conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation, talking openly in congressional hearings about “spying” on the Trump campaign. And major newspapers reported on how he and Durham had traveled overseas together seeking cooperation from foreign allied governments to upend the supposed Australian origins of the investigation.
And the Durham Report plainly says that the FBI was telling the truth. The reasons that Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Report gave were the real reasons that the investigation was opened:
a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane
In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy advisor. Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center of lntemational Law Practice. Among Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").
So what laws were violated by whom in this investigation? There are some, but they are not new. The Horowitz Report already talked about the use of the Steele Report, which the FBI knew was unreliable, in the Carter Page FISA affair:
https://oig.justice.gov/node/16547
But that seems to have been the main use of the Steele Report, it was not widely relied on, and the Horowitz Report went into great length on that.
So ... did Durham find new people to prosecute? New instances of crimes that were committed? Proof of a deep state consipracy against Trump? IT sure doesn't look like it. But that's what he was authorized to look for. And that's why this report looks like a dud to me.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
