The Washington Post issued a series of corrections on stories published during the Russiagate saga, a direct result of reporting from the Twitter Files by independent journalist Matt Taibbi.

In January, Taibbi drew attention to Hamilton 68, a "dashboard" that purportedly monitored Russian bot activity and was frequently cited by top Democrats and the media in the height of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. But behind the scenes, Twitter executives trashed Hamilton 68 and deliberated over whether they should publicly rebuke the program. 

This week, special counsel John Durham released a 316-page report detailing the origins of Operation Crossfire Hurricane—the FBI’s investigation into supposed connections between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

The report is an astounding expose of corruption and collusion—not between former President Donald Trump and Russia, but between the Hillary Clinton campaign, friendlies at the FBI, and top officials at the Obama administration.

Among the most troubling conclusions in special counsel John Durham’s Russiagate report is that the FBI — even as it relied on Clinton-campaign-funded opposition research against Donald Trump that it failed to verify — ignored strongly supported intelligence that Hillary Clinton was intentionally smearing Trump as a Putin puppet.

To my mind, Durham is being too kind.

Observers and political analysts have commented on the long-awaited report of special counsel John Durham, which looked into the purported scheme to link former president Donald Trump to Russia in 2016, with some saying the report exonerated him in a way.

Special counsel John Durham’s report released Monday details his investigation of a purported effort by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to tie Donald Trump to Russia but which Durham concludes “did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense.”

Durham reveals in a footnote that he interviewed the former secretary of State in May 2022 as part of his investigation.

A special prosecutor found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence as he concluded a four-year probe that fell far short of the former president’s prediction that the “crime of the century” would be uncovered.

The FBI responded Monday to the scathing report by Special Counsel John Durham that found the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, the agency touted what it said were "dozens of corrective actions" already implemented as a result of the Durham investigation.

A special counsel appointed in President Donald Trump’s administration issued a highly critical report on how the FBI handled allegations linking Mr. Trump to Russia in 2016, ending four years of work Monday after having lost the two criminal cases he took to trial.

In his 306-page report, John Durham, the former top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, repeated prior criticisms faulting the Federal Bureau of Investigation on a number of points.

The recent revelations about Special Counsel John H. Durham’s investigation of the origins of Robert Mueller’s Russia inquiry paint a bleak picture — one that’s thoroughly at odds with governing law. Those rules, called the Special Counsel Regulations, contemplate someone independent of the attorney general who can reassure the public that justice is being done.

As he wraps up his Russiagate investigation with the now-failed prosecution of Igor Danchenko, we are left only with questions about what John Durham did not do.