mr. durham and his team had lost their way, ignoring signs of serious flaws in their cases because they were so intent on convicting someone. this "new york times" reporting and analysis, neal katyalts way, greg craig wanting to inform greg craig. >> i think that timeline you gave was really helpful. it's important to note that timeline you note starts in may 2019. there's a whole set of events that happened before that, which is the inspector general of the justice department had investigated all of these things already. so, durham was appointed by barr after there was already a full-blown investigation that concluded that there was no problem. durham then started saying, oh, no, i disagree with the ig's investigation. and that's led to where we are now. and it is an absolute disgrace. i mean, i can't put this in simple enough terms, stark enough terms. but if you're a federal prosecutor, you really have to try to lose your criminal case. i mean, it's kind of like failing a class at stanford. you really got to try to do it. 99.6% of federal indictments, according to the pew research study, wind up in a conviction. and that's why there's so much of the justice department is design