Very good thread by @RoscoeBDavis1 which I'm going to riff off. Roscoe already covered many of the problems with this case...I'm going to discuss the politics of it, just why even ordinary investigations take so long. https://twitter.com/RoscoeBDavis1/status/1315262779918610432

I'm a specialist in financial and cyber cases with particular emphasis on complex multi-defendant cases. Most of my own investigations take several years to bring to indictment. Let's start with the basics.

First, once you get an investigation up and going, it takes a while to get evidence, organize it, then analyze it. For example, let's say a bank account has been identified. A subpoena has to be issued and served. Then a bank will deliver the records you subpoenaed and 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺

what was requested. Now, normally the investigator will request everything and the kitchen sink in order to cover all the bases. But that still wont get you everything. I'll come back to that. So the records come in. This used to be physical documents now is mostly electronic.

So that often takes two to four weeks to get those records. They have to be analyzed for information. That takes time. Then that may lead to more accounts being identified. Now if that account is held by the same person that might be covered under the subpoena. But it's not. Its

Let's say its an account/person/company that wasn't known when the first subpoena was issued. Or its at another bank entirely. Guess what? Now a second subpoena has to be issued. Now you're almost two months out and you've got two accounts.

And many times the bank doesn't give you everything because they overlook stuff or make errors. They forget signature cards or they want to argue over whether the subpoena covers certain items that weren't specifically mentioned.

Now many people think this happens in a vacuum. It's important case so the Agents should only work that. And maybe there are Agents dedicated to the investigation that have absolutely nothing else. But most Agents have other duties even if they have no other cases.

And while a particular case is important to you, Agents have lots of things that are important going on. For example, my AUSA calls me and says they want something by Friday. That's a priority for me. But that priority changes if an AUSA in another state calls and says they need

me to testify as an expert next week. At that point, I have to drop everything to work on that case. Travel to/from also will take a week. One day to fly in, one day to fly out, and at least one day to be in court assuming the prosecution can accurately predict which day I'm

needed. So now two weeks have gone by and I've not worked on my case. Also, it's October. I've got 15 mandatory briefings to do. I've got a TS clearance so I have to take TS briefings/trainings for my agency and the same one for the FBI. So that takes up more time.

Oh, btw, it's October and I've taken ZERO leave. I have use or lose. Now I've got a month to take off between now and January. This happens to senior agents A LOT. Between September and January 2nd, there are at least 6 holidays. I say at least because sometimes the President

gives us Christmas Eve off. That's 7 days. Ok...moving on. See in most people's fantasy world, emails and text messages are easy to obtain and then analyze. This just isn't reality. First you've got to get them. You get an email account via search warrant (the emails that is).

An affidavit has to be drafted then reviewed by attorneys then signed off by a Judge. That can happen in a matter of hours but usually takes days. Then it's served on the provider. That is done electronically.

Two weeks later or longer you get a file with 10,000 emails. Now you're thinking just run keyword searches. For example, people were talking about insurance. So just run a search for "insurance." Sounds good, right? Wrong. People make typos. They abbreviate. They use jargon.

They imply a thing without actually saying it. None of that gets caught by using keyword searches. In text messages some people hardly use intelligible English. What has to happen is the case agent(s) have to review ALL of the emails and text messages.

You ever read 10,000 emails? Now let's say that email communicates with another email that is clearly relevant to the investigation. Guess what. You have to go get another warrant and wait for the production.

So let's move on. Roscoe mentioned TS material and he outlined the problems with it and why it needs to be declassified. Well there is also a problem in reviewing it in the first place. Guess where you have to be to review classified material?

If you said "the office" you are correct. Agents can't take it home and really can't access it remotely. If its SCI then it has to be reviewed in a SCIF. So guess what happened in March? All Federal employees were told to work from home and limited time in the office.

Whenever somebody at the office gets infected the entire building is shut down for cleaning and those in the workgroup are not allowed back for 14 days. Also, entire courthouses and businesses were closed. In short, COVID really played havoc with the ability to get stuff done.

Moving on. Interviews in major cases are often left until the end or at least until the Agents and prosecutors know enough to do a thorough interview and detect any false information given by the witness/subject.

The problem with interviews, and a lot of Agents don't know this (this is a major problem with management who wants to do things the old way), is that you give information when you interview people. The mere question can signal what you have/don't have or know.

Moving onto additional problems. When phones/computers/etc. are deleted or need to be forensically analyzed this takes time. You have to get the items then get a computer scientist to image it then run it through forensic programs to push out information (like deleted files).

Let's talk about multiple targets for a minute. As a case is developing you start adding more targets/suspects/subjects. As you are building a case many times you realize the case against certain conspirators is weaker than others. The evidence you have is massive.

What this means is going back through what you've got or focusing on evidence you need for these particular subjects. Some subjects the case may be clear cut and ready to go. But you aren't going to indict that person until you're ready to go on all of them.

This is especially true with a RICO case. But even in a general conspiracy case or any case where you will charge multiple people, you really don't want to charge until you are ready to go. Contrary to popular opinion, government resources are finite.

Agencies are loathe to assign more people. You may think this case is important but to top brass this is a giant suck of resources that will produce ONE STAT. That's nice for press but terrible for your stats. And that's mostly what management cares about. That's what gets money

from Congress and asset forfeiture. When you indict a case that puts things into motion you can't stop. Discovery. Hearings. Motions. Possibly trial prep. All of that takes up resources from investigations. It also takes up the prosecutor's time.

Another potential problem is that the defendant can talk to co-conspirators and defense attorneys can talk to one another. That could be a problem if investigators are still collecting evidence.

Going back to evidence for a minute. A lot of things being looked at by Durham are probably not illegal in and of themselves. I'll give you an example that's not related but show how an action that is legal can be illegal under certain circumstances.

Here's an unrelated case but related to the govt misconduct against Trump. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/internal-revenue-service-analyst-pleads-guilty-making-unauthorized-disclosure

So IRS-CI employees and most law enforcement have access to multiple databases including FinCEN either directly or indirectly.

They run inquiries all day everyday. As long as its related to their job there is nothing wrong with it. But let's say a guy gets divorced and runs his wife (I was a supervisor and I had an employee do this). That's illegal.

That was the case in this DOJ case where the analyst accessed information (that case is more problematic because he also leaked it). The Durham case will likely be much more difficult because many actions may be perfectly acceptable under normal circumstances.

Remember what I said about all those emails and texts? Now they have to be gone through to determine who knew what and when they knew it. That's likely the only way to establish intent to commit a crime which is what would make certain actions criminal.

As an aside, I was previously skeptical that Durham would be able to prosecute anybody. The reason is because these cases, from my experience, are exceedingly difficult to find evidence of intent. I've now changed my opinion due to what I've seen so far. However, my doubt was

never related to the time the case was taking.

There are many other issues that can delay a case I've not even touch. But I hope this serves as a decent discussion of why these cases can take so long (on top of Roscoe's points).