People in the United States are often weary of hearing about John Durham’s investigation, which began during the administration of President Donald J. Trump, and updates over the years since Durham began investigating what actually transpired between Trump and the Russians receive less and less attention.

Durham and his legal team have been criticized after their only two cases that went to trial resulted in acquittals on what the left and its media allies termed “narrow charges of lying to the FBI.”

Before concluding the inquiry, Durham’s office is supposed to prepare a written report, although no one really knows when this will occur.

Lawyers on Durham’s legal team have defended the inquiry, stating that criticism is “natural” for high-profile investigations that include political problems.

Now there is a fresh new perspective to maintain people’s interest in Durham’s work.

The significance of Special Counsel John Durham’s ongoing inquiry into the beginnings of the “Trump-Russia collusion” probe is outlined in an opinion piece published by The Hill.

Kevin R. Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, an FBI special agent for 24 years, and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center who now works as a security consultant, begins his article by noting that for a year and a half following Durham’s appointment late in former President Trump’s term, the country did not hear much about him.

Aside from indictments of “peripheral” characters, it appeared to many Trump supporters that Durham’s investigation would not produce much and “that elites higher up the stack are going to get away with their chicanery,” as Brock noted.

“The problem for Durham is that these perceptions were providing the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) with increasing political top cover to shut down the special prosecutor’s office as an unproductive, politics-driven exercise in futility that is wasting taxpayer dollars,” Brock continued.

“If Durham were to be terminated, the American people might not even push back much since no one had a clue whether his investigation was bearing meaningful fruit,” he wrote.

Brock continued by stating that Attorney General Merrick Garland has already taken steps to undermine Durham by repairing the reputation of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was sacked under the Trump administration.

But, he argued, Durham could not just have a news conference and reveal the inner workings and conclusions of his probe. In lieu of this, on February 11 he utilized a relatively “innocuous” court file that contained a number of bombshell admissions, therefore revealing his conclusions.

Brock writes:

Tucked inside the court filing, John Durham laid out a good chunk of the case he’s building, and it was stunning. Durham revealed the outlines of a corrupt conspiracy by operatives linked to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The exposed conspiracy allegedly made a contrived, fraudulent, and shocking attempt to entice the FBI and CIA to use their powers against the rival Trump campaign and presidency.

More on this story via The Republic Brief:

This recent filing by Durham was designed to have two effects. First and most important, he has now made any decision by the president or attorney general to dump him much more difficult to undertake. The last time a president fired a special prosecutor who was making significant progress, he lost his presidency. COTINUE READING…