The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism for the FBI but few significant revelations. Nonetheless, it will give fodder to Trump supporters who have long denounced the Russia investigation, as well as Trump opponents who say the Durham teams meager court record shows their probe was a politically motivated farce.

A look at the investigation and the report:

WHO IS JOHN DURHAM?

Durham has spent decades as a Justice Department prosecutor, with past assignments including investigations into the FBIs cozy relationship with mobsters in Boston and the CIAs destruction of videotapes of its harsh interrogations of terrorism subjects.

He was appointed in 2019 to investigate potential misconduct by U.S. government officials as they examined Russian election interference in 2016 and whether there was any illegal coordination between the Kremlin and Trumps presidential campaign.

Despite skimpy results one guilty plea and two acquittals that failed to live up to Trumps expectations, Durham was able to continue his work well into the Biden administration, thanks in part to William Barr appointing Durham as a Justice Department special counsel shortly before Barrs 2020 resignation as attorney general.

WHY DID THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THINK SUCH AN APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY?

The appointment came weeks after a different special counsel, Robert Mueller, wrapped up his investigation of possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. That probe produced more than two dozen criminal cases, including against a half-dozen Trump associates.

Though it did not charge any Trump aide with working with Russia to tip the election, it did find that Russia interfered on Trumps behalf and that the campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

From the start, Barr was deeply skeptical of the investigations foundation, telling Congress that spying did occur on the campaign.

He enlisted an outside prosecutor to hunt for potential misconduct at the government agencies who were involved in collecting intelligence and conducting the investigation, even flying with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the probe.

WERE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION?

Yes, and a Justice Department inspector general inquiry already identified many.

The watchdog report found that FBI applications for warrants to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained significant errors and omitted information that would likely have weakened or undermined the premise of the application.

The cumulative effect of those errors, the report said, was to make it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

Still, the inspector general did not find evidence that investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis to open a full investigation into potential collusion, though Durham has disagreed.

WHAT CRIMINAL CASES DID HE BRING AND WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME?

Durham brought three prosecution during his tenure, but only one resulted in a conviction and that was for a case referred to him by the Justice Department inspector general. None of the three undid core findings by Mueller that Russia had interfered with the 2016 election in sweeping fashion and that the Trump campaign had welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

A former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email related to the surveillance of ex-Trump campaign aide. He was given probation.

But two other cases, both involving alleged false statements to the FBI, resulted in acquittals by jury.

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he presented computer data information that he wanted the FBI to investigate. A different jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, a Russian-American analyst, of charges that he lied to the FBI about his role in the creation of a discredited dossier about Trump.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID DURHAM FIND?

Durham found that the FBI acted too hastily and relied on raw and unconfirmed intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation.

He said at the time the probe was opened, the FBI had no information about any actual contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.

He also claimed that FBI investigators fell prone to confirmation bias, repeatedly ignoring or rationalizing away information that could have undercut the premise of their investigation, and he noted that the FBI failed to corroborate a single substantive allegation from a dossier of research that it relied on during the course of the probe.

An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes, the report said, using the FBIs code name for the Trump-Russia probe. Unfortunately, it did not.

HOW DID THE FBI RESPOND?

The FBI pointed out that it had long ago made dozens of corrective actions. Had those measures been in place in 2016, it says, the errors at the center of the report could have been prevented.

It also took pains to note that the conduct in the report took place before the current director, Christopher Wray, took the job in fall 2017.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

It didnt take long for Republicans in Congress to react. Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he had invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump, too, sought to seize on the report, saying it showed how the American public had been scammed.

Though the FBI says its already taken some steps, Durham did say its possible more reform could be needed. One idea, he said, would be to provide additional scrutiny of politically sensitive investigations by identifying an official who would be responsible for challenging the steps taken in a probe.

He said his team had considered but did not ultimately recommend steps that would curtail the FBIs investigative authorities, including its use of tools under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspected spies or terrorists.

After six miscarriages, Tincopa and her husband started saving for in vitro fertilization, which can cost well over $20,000. But the pandemic wiped out their savings, and they cant find coverage for IVF on their states health insurance marketplace. So, the California couple is saving again, and asking politicians to help expand access.

No one should ever have to go through this, Tincopa said.

Infertility, or the inability to get pregnant after a year or more of trying, is a common problem. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that it affects nearly one in five married girls or women between the ages of 15 and 49.

Yet coverage of fertility treatments can be hard to find in many corners of health insurance even as it grows briskly with big employers who see it as a must-have benefit to keep workers.

Its a divide researchers say is leading to haves and have nots for treatments, which can involve a range of prescription drugs and procedures like artificial insemination or IVF, where an embryo is created by mixing eggs and sperm in a lab dish.

It is still primarily for people who can afford to pay quite a bit out of pocket, said Usha Ranji, associate director of womens health policy at KFF, a nonprofit that studies health care issues.

Clouding this picture are insurer concerns about cost as well as questions about how much fertility coverage should be emphasized or mandated versus helping people find other ways to build families, such as adoption.

If youre going to offer one, there should be a corollary and maybe even more significant benefits for adoption, medical ethicist Dr. Philip Rosoff said.

A total of 54% of the biggest U.S. employers those with 20,000 workers or more covered IVF in 2022, according to the benefits consultant Mercer. Thats up from 36% in 2015. Walmart started offering coverage last fall and banking giant JPMorgan began this year.

Many businesses that offer the coverage extend it beyond those with an infertility diagnosis, making it accessible to LGBTQ+ couples and single women, according to Mercer.

The benefits consultant also said theres big growth among employers with 500 or more workers, as 43% offered IVF coverage last year. But coverage gets spotty with smaller employers.

Lauderhill (Florida) Fire Rescue Lt. Ame Mason estimates she and her husband have spent close to $100,000 of their own money on fertility treatments over the past few years, including several unsuccessful IVF attempts. Mason and her husband both work for the same department.

Her brother-in-law also has a fertility issue. He works for a bigger fire department in nearby Palm Beach County and got coverage. Mason said that couple has a son.

Its pretty wild. You could work a county away and have coverage, Mason said. Theres nothing regulating it both government jobs.

Twenty-one states have laws mandating coverage of fertility treatments or fertility preservation, which some patients need before cancer treatments, according to the nonprofit patient advocacy organization Resolve. Of those states, 14 require IVF coverage.

But most of these requirements dont apply to individual insurance plans or coverage sold through small employers.

People tell us that their biggest barrier to family building is lack of insurance coverage, Resolve CEO Barbara Collura said, adding that some insurers dont view the care as medically necessary.

The state and federally funded Medicaid program for people with low incomes limits coverage of fertility issues largely to diagnosis in several states, according to KFF, which says Black and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. States also can exclude fertility drugs from prescription coverage.

By not covering this for poor folks, were saying we dont want you to reproduce, said medical ethicist Lisa Campo-Engelstein of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas. She noted Medicaid programs do cover birth control and sterilization procedures like vasectomies.

In California, Tincopa says she has talked to both state and federal legislators about creating some sort of option for people to purchase individual insurance with the coverage.

The state Senate is weighing a bill that would require coverage of fertility treatments, including IVF, for large employers. But the California Association of Health Plans opposes it, just as it opposed similar bills in recent years, because of how much it might cost.

Spokeswoman Mary Ellen Grant noted independent analysis has shown that bills like this could increase premiums by as much as $1 billion in the state. She also said it would create a coverage gap because it wouldnt apply to the states Medicaid enrollees.

This is not about the treatment itself, she said. Its strictly based on the increased costs for our members. It would impact everybody regardless of whether they received the benefit.

But large fertility cost estimates often overstate how many people will use the benefit, said Sean Tipton, of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. He also said most people with fertility problems dont need IVF.

Tipton, who has advocated for benefit mandates in several states, said he expects to see fertility treatment coverage grow, especially with small employers who may need to offer it to attract and keep workers.

Any states that decide to require fertility treatment coverage should also require support for adoption, said Rosoff, a retired Duke University medical school professor. He said fairness and justice dictate doing so, adding that adoption promotes the social good of finding homes for children.

Many companies that have expanded fertility benefits also support adoption.

Ame Masons employer helps with neither.

Mason said she has thought about adoption, but will stick with IVF for now scrimping wherever they can and working overtime as much as possible to pay for it. Theyve found a doctor in Florida after traveling to Barbados for care that was slightly less expensive.

Plus, she and her husband are seeing improvements in their most recent IVF attempts. This makes her reluctant to stop trying.

We keep getting that glimmer of hope, she said.

By purchasing more than 62 million of the stablecoin tokens, the Chicago-based firm pushed the algorithmic stablecoins price back to $1 after it had lost its peg in May 2021, according to the court filings. Later, Kwon, CEO of Terra and cocreator of Terraform Labs, touted the recovery as proof of the stablecoin algorithms self-healing abilities and its ability to maintain a dollar peg through a code-enabled balancing act with sister cryptocurrency Luna.

The SEC had previously revealed in its complaint against Terraform Labs and Kwon that an unnamed third party trading partner had greatly profited from saving the Terra stablecoin from the brink of collapse. Citing unnamed sources, The Block first reported in February that the third party was Jump.

A year before Terra unraveled in what amounted to a crypto bank run on its algorithmic stablecoin, it received a multimillion-dollar cash injection, and in exchange, Terraform Labs, the company behind the Terra stablecoin, agreed to let Jump Trading buy Luna tokens for 30, 40, and 50 cents over a three-year period.

This arrangement netted Jump $1.28 billion, according to a complaint by the SEC accusing Kwon and Terraform Labs of securities fraud and selling unregistered securities. Jump Trading has not been accused of wrongdoing. Earlier this month an investor filed a class action lawsuit against Jump Trading and Jump Crypto president Kanav Kariya for the companys role in profiting from propping up Terra.

The most recent court filings by the SEC include a contract from November 2019 that outlines a three-year loan agreement between Terraform Labs and Jump subsidiary Tai Mo Shan Limited for 30 million Luna tokens with a 2% annualized interest also payable in Luna tokens.

Another of the documents released by the SEC includes an email Kwon sent to investors saying Terraform Labs had made an important arrangement with Jump and that the company had asked them to keep quiet about it, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Kwon is currently out on bail in Montenegro, where he awaits trial on charges that he attempted to use a forged Costa Rican passport. The U.S. and South Korea are both seeking to extradite him.

Jump did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fortune. Jump Crypto, the digital assets trading unit, is planning to expand internationally and pull back from U.S. markets amid recent increased regulatory pressure, according to Bloomberg.