The NYT's hit piece is really quite something. It's HEAVY on the spin and programming.

It's trying to force upon the reader a view that Durham a) never had a basis beyond gross political warfare, b) that he has failed and c) that he is done.

It's short on facts or any useful information, save this paragraph above.

Did Durham pursue a line of evidence that lead him to Soros?

"The emails yielded no evidence that Mr. Durham has cited in any case he pursued"...

Yet.