Talk:John Durham

message: This article is imprecise about its use of words like "investigation" and other similar words, which have precise legal meaning. It is important to carefully quote the mandate that has been given to Durham, which is very narrowly defined and limited. IANAL, so a real lawyer needs to edit this stub.
BobSchacht (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Durham (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924192603/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/09/torture-tales-calling-john-durham.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/09/torture-tales-calling-john-durham.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In reviewing History, there are inappropriate displays.  Is something going wrong in Wikipedia, or maybe just this page?  X1\ (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything wrong, but it's difficult to know what I should be looking for unless you say more specifically what you mean by "inappropriate displays". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   it appears to have passed.  When I was attempting to make my edits, upon review of my edits, I found other edits had been made; twice.  May be someone in the background reverted the page to an earlier backup?  My "inappropriate displays" was intentionally vague as I was rushing to figure-out what was happening.  My "admin help" was an attempt at guessing if there was a server issue, that maybe a wp/wm Server Engineer would know the answer.  Hopefully it just doesn't happen again.  X1\ (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  glitch at this page or in the system? 

message: During the Senate committee on April 10, 2019, Barr "told a Senate subcommittee that spying on the Trump campaign occurred and that he's undertaking a review of the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into members of the Trump campaign and Russia to determine whether there was "unauthorized surveillance." (CNN_4/10/19) There hasn't been an official announcement from Barr or anyone else from the Justice Department; the news report on May 13 and 14 are based on confidential sources. He's not in charge of the separate Justice Department IG investigation of the wiretap authorization against Carter Page and of Colorado A.G. John W. Huber's—according to Justice Dept.—ongoing investigation into the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 FBI review 

message: I tried to improve and I recognize that more was needed, but the order of this section as recently revised is a bit random and jumps around a lot, has been made less chronological.  Especially the last 2 paragraphs which are early stuff. Sullidav (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career section 

message: Is it accurate to describe Mueller as Durham’s predecessor? Their jobs are not mutually exclusive, and there can any number of special counsels at any given time, each investigating completely different things, as is the case here. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reasons, I question whether it's correct to identify Jack Smith as his successor.DoctorCaligari (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree on all three counts. Just because they temporally succeeded each other with the same "special counsel" title does not mean they are "successors". Treat them individually. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mueller in infobox 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: uncontested move.  DrKay (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: John Durham (lawyer) →  – As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "John Durham (lawyer)" > "John Durham"; "John Durham" > "John Durham (disambiguation)", with a hatnote on John Durham. Pageviews for the other two aren't even close: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=John_Durham_(lawyer)|John_S._Durham_(ambassador)|John_Durham_(Medal_of_Honor) . Ich (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 August 2021 

message: I'm not sure how this fits in, but it might be of interest:
* Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He’s Really Bad At Discovery
Valjean (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if it came from a less hysterically biased source. The article is dripping with contempt; I'd say including the link above here in talk probably presents a BLP violation. Anastrophe (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sussman Trial Must Be Delayed, John Durham Says, Because He’s Really Bad At Discovery 

message: Yes, context matters, and the reason for the start of Durham's investigation is still problematic, as it was based on lies and conspiracy theories pushed by TFG to distract from, and cover-up, his misdeeds:
* "...a yearslong effort by Donald Trump and former Attorney General William Barr to seek retribution for the Trump-Russia investigation... John Durham, who was appointed by Barr in early 2019...to investigate the origins of what Trump and Barr had characterized as a “witch hunt.” Their apparent hope was that Durham...would find that senior DOJ or FBI officials in the Obama-Biden administration had somehow tried to manufacture or exaggerate ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. So far, he has not, but the fresh round of subpoenas suggests that Durham is continuing his work."
* "...a seemingly aimless criminal investigation that began as a political vendetta on the part of Trump."
* "...the effort looks suspiciously like a proverbial fishing expedition. These concerns were further compounded on Thursday, when both CNN and the New York Times published stories that suggested that allegations in the Sussmann indictment were based on a highly selective — and arguably disingenuous — characterization of relevant emails."
* "... the DOJ under Garland appears to be sitting idly by as information continues to accumulate that provides further reason to investigate the conduct of Trump himself in the wake of the 2020 election."
Of course, anything from this should be attributed to Khardori. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to look up TFG (we're not all policy wonks!). I'm not really sure it's appropriate to drop into vernacular characterizations that have multiple meanings - 'The Former Guy' or sometimes, "That Fucking Guy". The quoted material is also largely speculative. At this point, this article is going into far too much detail on the current investigation: little of the material already here directly has to do with Durham himself (this being a BLP), and deals with an ongoing investigation, the majority of details into which we have no visibility, because, well, that's rather implicit in it being ongoing, and not complete. Large portions of these sections are already covered elsewhere. Again, this is the biography of John Durham, not a litigation of this recent portion of his life and career. The article is going off the rails.Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm only very minimally engaged/invested in these matters. The massive amounts of cloak & dagger and allegations of cloak & dagger and theories of cloak & dagger being employed upon other cloak & dagger in all the Trump stuff makes my head hurt, and I instead eat cookies, which is far more pleasant. Anastrophe (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biden's Justice Department Should Not Be Pursuing Trump's Political Vendetta 

message: These two special counsels currently oversee separate investigations. See this NY Times article (18 November 2022). According to the Times article, John Durham has not yet submitted his final report. Robert.Allen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Smith and John Durham 

message: I would expect the page to report the massive controversy about Durham's alleged bias and malfeasance, the resignation of his #2, his highly inappropriate relationship with AG Barr during his Special Counsel tenure; his use of Russian intelligence to attempt to gain access to emails, etc. etc. etc. See NYT, 1/26/23. Kevintimba (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Durham special counsel investigation soibangla (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page seems biased to the right 

message: Re this revert. The readable text is only 200 characters longer than the version you reverted to but it had three additional reliable sources I added. The difference between the two text versions is that mine contains more facts from reliable secondary sources instead of an entire paragraph, added here by an editor with a total of 24 edits (mostly on Durham and the Russia investigation), consisting of two long quotes (or maybe three because of the confusing quotation marks) from Durham’s final report. We should be using significant views that have been published by reliable sources and not give Durham’s report, the primary source, the last word, so to speak. This is a comparatively short article, length isn’t an issue. I think it is relevant for Durham’s personal bio that, e.g., the few indictments that resulted from his expensive four-year investigation had nothing to do with the allegations and insinuations publicized by Durham throughout the investigation and in his final report.
Version reverted to:
Reverted version:
You actually challenged the paragraph with the quotes when 7/11 added it to Durham special counsel investigation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have restored your version and fixed a typo as well. Let's see what others think. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Counsel