John Durham Is Now Investigating If FBI Was Purposely Misled With Fabricated Evidence

( We haven’t heard much from John Durham after he was appointed as the Special Counsel to investigate the origins of the hoax Russia investigation, which ultimately proved that former President Donald Trump did not collude with Russia during the 2016 election, but we’re finally beginning to discover possible reasons why it is taking so long.

According to a report by The Washington Post, Durham is currently investigating the possibility that somebody lied to the FBI and gave them false evidence. He is presenting evidence to a grand jury regarding the investigation into the origins of the original Trump-Russia investigation, and it could be about to blow the lid off what Hillary Clinton and her campaign may have done during their attempt to get her elected.

The investigation may uncover that somebody in Hillary Clinton’s team was involved in the obtaining of an unverified dossier, from a former British spy, that contained fabricated evidence that justified an FBI investigation into former President Donald Trump. If that occurred, it would be a crime.

The former British spy, Christopher Steele, is believed to have been hired by the Democrats to produce a dossier that contained “evidence” that would get Trump landed with a years-long investigation, presumably to tar his name. It is one of the worst crimes committed in American political history, and yet, Hillary Clinton is still not widely recognized by the political establishment and the media as the mastermind behind this fraud.

Hopefully, this investigation will soon prove it.

The Post said that Durham’s most recent inquiries, according to sources familiar with the investigation, are focused on the authenticity of data that was given to the FVI about alleged cyber links between Alfa Bank in Russia and former President Trump’s campaign. It was a theory long pushed by journalists and some politically motivated computer scientists to claim that Trump was working with Russia.

Researchers believe that the evidence may have been fabricated, and if the investigation ultimately shows it, a lot of journalists are going to have a lot of apologizing to do.

But…will they?