What Durham is up to

 Kevin Brock:

...

Durham couldn’t hold a news conference or pen an op-ed touting progress; that’s just not done by investigators in the middle of an investigation. So, he turned to a readily available vehicle — a routine, fairly innocuous motion filed with the court — to embed an explosive message to the DOJ and the American people. It landed like fireworks at a funeral. No one saw it coming.

Tucked inside the court filing, John Durham laid out a good chunk of the case he’s building, and it was stunning. Durham revealed the outlines of a corrupt conspiracy by operatives linked to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The exposed conspiracy allegedly made a contrived, fraudulent and shocking attempt to entice the FBI and CIA to use their powers against the rival Trump campaign and presidency.

This recent filing by Durham was designed to have two effects. First, and most important, he has now made any decision by the president or attorney general to dump him much more difficult to undertake. The last time a president fired a special prosecutor who was making significant progress, he lost his presidency.

Second, Durham has signaled to the American people that his investigation has legs, despite perceptions of plodding inertia. He has provided hope that accountability in D.C. — rare as a MAGA sticker on a Prius — actually might happen.

Durham’s filing triggered hyperbolic conjecture on the right and nervous silence on the left. Don’t be distracted by reactions driven by politics. Look at the actual words Durham used; they’re troubling enough on their own.

Those words are found in a section of the filed motion titled “Factual Background.” In it, Durham expands on information that led him to indict an attorney connected to the Hillary Clinton campaign, Michael Sussmann, for allegedly lying to the FBI.

According to Durham, Sussmann brought information to the FBI in September 2016 that he claimed proved a direct connection between candidate Trump and Russia to get the FBI to investigate. But Durham says Sussmann falsely told the FBI that he was not presenting the information on behalf of any client when, in fact, he was billing the Clinton campaign for his time.

Sussmann’s defense attorneys now argue, in effect, that even if he lied, the lie would not be material because the information was valid. But the lie would be quite material, because Sussmann allegedly was asking the FBI to expend costly resources to investigate his claims. If he concealed the clients on whose behalf he evidently was acting, as Durham charges, he would have fraudulently deprived the FBI of facts that would have helped the bureau decide whether it was worth investing taxpayer dollars on an investigation. Knowing Sussmann’s true affiliations was clearly information the FBI deserved to know.

In addition, despite the Sussmann attorneys’ assertions that the information he possessed was bona fide, Durham makes an interesting case why it allegedly wasn’t. At this point in the Factual Background section, he expands on the role allegedly played by “Tech Executive 1,” now known to be Rodney Joffe of Neustar, one of the country’s most powerful tech companies you’ve probably never heard of.

Durham’s description of Joffe’s alleged activities does not paint him in a good light. According to Durham, Joffe exploited Neustar data and other friendly sources to help him “establish ... an inference and narrative” tying Trump to Russia — and that he allegedly did so to please “VIPs” within the Clinton campaign and its law firm. Sussmann happened to be Joffe’s attorney as well.

Joffe, in this scenario, isn’t an independent whistleblower; he’s a partisan whistle maker. Durham could only know all this if either Joffe told him or the sources Joffe approached for help disclosed those conversations to Durham’s investigators. Neither reality can be comforting to those involved. Of all the points made in the Factual Background, Joffe’s alleged efforts and their disclosure are the most damaging to those who may have participated in a burgeoning conspiracy.
...

I suspect that Durham is causing the walls to close in on the person most responsible for this conspiracy, Hillary Clinton. It is the story of one of the biggest political frauds in history and those responsible for it need to be brought to justice. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more