According to a bombshell report from the New York Times Friday morning, U.S. Attorney John Durham has been investigating whether Obama administration officials hid or perhaps manipulated intelligence about Russia’s meddling.
Of course, that’s not exactly how the New York Times wants you to see this story. From the very first paragraph, the NYT tries to spin the story as a partisan fishing expedition, not a legitimate investigation of Obama-era corruption. “Trump administration officials investigating the government’s response to Russia’s election interference in 2016 appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials of hiding evidence or manipulating analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, according to people familiar with aspects of the inquiry.”
Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.
The NYT then not-so-subtlely suggests that Trump is simply using the Justice Department to “go after his enemies,” but there are legitimate questions about what the Obama administration did (and didn’t) do when it was made clear that Russia was attempting to meddle in our elections.
It’s been previously reported than Barack Obama, and thus, his administration, was not only aware that Russia was trying to interfere, but actually prevented any sort of response to it.
According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama was first alerted by John Brennan about Russia’s efforts in early August of 2016. However, despite the alarm given, Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice literally gave a “stand-down” order to Obama’s cybersecurity czar, rather than respond with full force. You don’t have to take my word for it. This was first revealed in the book, Russian Roulette, by left-wing authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn. What was Obama trying to hide?
It seems like John Durham is trying to answer that question, and the New York Times is afraid of what the answer is.