╌>

If John Durham Doesn't End His Investigation Immediately It Will have Gone On As Long As The Mueller Investigation Did

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  3 years ago  •  46 comments

If John Durham Doesn't End His Investigation Immediately It Will have Gone On As Long As The Mueller Investigation Did

Mueller Investigation   May 2017 - March 2019

Durham Investigation   May 2019 -  ??  2021

As you can see there is a parallel to be had, in that both investigations began in May.  Mueller's was roughly 22 months , and in a few weeks Durham's will be roughly 22 months.  I wonder if Durham will release a 450 page document detailing his findings like Mueller did. I'm thinking not. 

I was just watching Malcolm Nance, the intelligence issues pundit, on a show.  He says Durham has nothing, and will produce his expense accounts and get his various reimbursements and what not, and call it a day.  He has evidently found nothing to indicate that the right wing fever dreams about deep state treason toward Trump was a reality. 

Oh well, no one will be able to say he wasn't given enough time. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    3 years ago
It is becoming apparent that the prosecution of former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith may be the zenith of special counsel John Durham's investigation into the roots of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation involving Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.  Recent reporting  suggests no other senior FBI or Department of Justice (DOJ) officials will face criminal charges.

In April 2019, before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, former Attorney General William Barr   testified : "Spying on a campaign is a big deal; I think spying did occur. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. I am not saying that improper surveillance occurred; I am concerned about it. There is a basis for my concern." This was the impetus for Barr's assigning Durham in May 2019 to investigate activities during and after the 2016 election.

There are hints that Durham's 20-month autopsy of Crossfire Hurricane may amount to findings of violations of FBI policies and investigative procedures, and other noncriminal matters. Other than additional false statement charges, the activities under investigation may not reach a criminal threshold. Moreover, since Durham's appointment, the government has declined to prosecute former FBI director James Comey and deputy director Andrew McCabe on criminal referrals arising from Office of Inspector General (IG) investigations.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 years ago
Other than additional false statement charges, the activities under investigation may not reach a criminal threshold.

To be fair, the whole false statement thing was everything to the anti-Trump crowd who hoped that the Russia investigation would be his undoing. Every time someone was accused of making false statements, it was front page news and dominated the TV. Now it's nothing? I mean, it's either a big deal, or it's not, right?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @1.1    3 years ago

Right wing media and social media all said that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, (his girlfriend whose name I cant remember), Brennan, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Biden, etc  would all be going to prison when Durham was done with them. The investigation appears to be a colossal nothing burger. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 years ago
The investigation appears to be a colossal nothing burger. 

Maybe. I don't have the patience to follow the thing in great detail because it takes too much work to sift through all the BS. I do, however, think practices at DOJ should be open to scrutiny and I have a problem when people resist that idea. Ironically, these are often the same people who protest injustice in local police. Why wouldn't the same failings be found in federal cops?

And if false statements from Trump campaign lackeys set our hair on fire, isn't it at least 100% worse coming from someone trusted and sworn to uphold law and justice?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.1    3 years ago
Every time someone was accused of making false statements, it was front page news and dominated the TV.

When 'someone' is indicted and pleads guilty of lying to the FBI, it's reasonable that it 'dominate the TV'.

Now it's nothing? I mean, it's either a big deal, or it's not, right?

It's not 'nothing' but it was ONE someone that altered an email. When confronted, he admitted it and plead guilty and was sentenced and will probably be disbarred. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 years ago

Are you getting antsy?

We were told to have patience and to wait for the facts to come out.

The one bright spot for you is that Merrick Garland refused to do what William Barr did - protect then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He clearly doesn't have the integrity Barr did.

"P resident Biden’s pick for   attorney general   didn’t directly promise to protect special counsel John Durham's investigation nor to make his report public, saying he would need to speak with the federal prosecutor before making a decision, though he said he didn't currently have reason to think it wasn't the right move to keep Durham on.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee, urged Merrick Garland to support Durham's investigation and to handle the inquiry into Hunter Biden without interference from the White House.

"With respect to special counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation," the Republican senator said. "If confirmed, will you commit to providing special counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds, and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation?"

"So senator, I don't have any information about the investigation as I sit here today, and another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham and figure out how his investigation is going," the judge replied. "I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision."




It seems Garland can't wait to talk to Durham. He has left the option open. Maybe you'll get your wish.

 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 years ago

Garland also won't commit to making  his report public. 

Imagine if Barr hid the Mueller report....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    3 years ago

He played it real cozy didn't he?  He was asked repeatedly to protect the Durham investigation. His answer revolved around talking to Barr. Obviously the FBI needs to be protected, despite how they were so careful to just stop short of flagrantly breaking the law. We did nail Kevin Clinesmith, but another progressive judge let him off with no jail time.

Imagine if Barr hid the Mueller report....

They'd be screaming at the sky again!

Of course, there was nothing to hide. It was a fishing expedition.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.1    3 years ago
Imagine if Barr hid the Mueller report....

Barr's summary about the Mueller report was so biased and misleading that Mueller himself came out to clarify things.  Wouldn't you consider lying about the results, the same as hiding the results?

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
1.2.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    3 years ago

Wouldn't you consider lying about the results, the same as hiding the results?

Worse actually.....

We may have to wait for the movie to come out for the Durham report findings.  It most likely will be a comedy lampooning the Trump administration...... They might even just to decide to use the writers for SNL for the script!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 years ago

You probably should have given up on Durham and changed your avatar by this point. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.5    3 years ago

I have no reason to give up on him. He is running a criminal investigation and I will await the final report.

BTW, there is one thing you didn't put into your little time comparison of Mueller and Durham. Durham no sooner got going and the pandemic hit. I can only imagine that delayed many things, such as a Grand Jury.  I'm sure that Merrick Garland will do whatever he can to protect those rats at he FBI. One way or the other, either Durham will file his report or Garland will disgrace himself by quashing the investigation, there shall be closure.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    3 years ago
Mueller himself came out to clarify things.

LOL, Is that what he was doing?   You mean Weissmann most likely sent him up there to try and 'splain!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 years ago
The one bright spot for you is that Merrick Garland refused to do what William Barr did - protect then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He clearly doesn't have the integrity Barr did.

Exactly WTF are you trying to pretend that Barr protected Mueller FROM Vic? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2.8    3 years ago

Why can't Garland commit to providing special counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds, and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation?

Simple question

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.10  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    3 years ago

Mueller and the word "clarify" will never go together. 

You must have missed his rambling, disjointed, and contradictory testimony to Congress. Thankfully he had two handlers there keeping him in line.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
1.2.11  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    3 years ago

Simple answer..... Have you ever heard of "return on investment"? 

If after meeting with Garland, and all Durham has at this point is some water-cooler hearsay by a couple of interns that hustle coffee, why should he commit to further funding?  If after meeting with Garland, and Durham can show some solid leads that need funding so they can be run down, then fine, fund them.

Face facts Vic..... If Durham had anything at all that could be backed up in front of a judge, it would have been out prior to the November election.  Trump would have made sure of that.  Even if they couldn't have been backed up in front of a judge, Trump would have been pushing them.   Nope.... No biscuit.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.9    3 years ago
Why can't Garland commit to providing special counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds, and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation?

Simple question

Well gee Vic, if I followed your lead, I wouldn't answer even a simple question, but hey, Garland already answered it. 

Until he becomes AG and evaluates Durham's 'investigation' for himself, he would be abdicating his duties to commit to ANYTHING. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    3 years ago
"Barr's summary about the Mueller report was so biased and misleading that Mueller himself came out to clarify things."

Barr's summary was his resume as consigliere to the former criminal enterprise of an administration.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.13    3 years ago
What did he find again?

If you're curious, look it up.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
1.2.16  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 years ago

When I saw his picture I thought it was you Vic.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
1.2.18  FLYNAVY1  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.17    3 years ago

Where did you look Goose..... Breitbart?

Try this....

Mueller Report: 9 key takeaways from the Mueller report - CBS News

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    3 years ago
ummary about the Mueller report was so biased and misleading that Mueller himself came out to clarify things.  Wouldn't you consider lying about the results, the same as hiding the results?

Imagine claiming that. 

Barr, in fact,  released  the whole report and his initial summary was accurate. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    3 years ago
Barr, in fact,  released  the whole report and his initial summary was accurate. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
1.2.21  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    3 years ago

OFFS.......!  Barr's summary read as if he hadn't even heard of Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    3 years ago
Barr, in fact,  released  the whole report and his initial summary was accurate.

Except the 'whole' redaction thingy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.24  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.2.23    3 years ago

Trump 'endeavor' to obstruct justice is a Federal Crime. Whether his aids carried out his orders is irrelevant. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2  Trout Giggles    3 years ago

Off topic here and I apologize....but...Why does he look like he roasts small children and then eats them?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    3 years ago

ha ha . thats a good one

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    3 years ago

<takes a bow>

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    3 years ago

No, he does not do that.  But, Durham does have a severe case of Trump constipation.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.3  Thomas  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    3 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thomas @2.3    3 years ago

now that would be a taunting violation...which Trout Giggles never commits!

Believe that and I have some ocean front property in Arkansas I want to sell you

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.3.1    3 years ago
Believe that and I have some ocean front property in Arkansas I want to sell you

hey,  never say never.....

Back in 1980 when so many people were so 'concerned' about the Big One hitting California,  a book came out called 'We Are The Earthquake Generation'.  My roommate picked it up for himself and on the back cover there was a drawing of the 'new' West Coast after the big one hits.  As i remember, basically the new West Coast started in El Paso, moved up to Denver and up into Idaho.  Everything to the west of that was gone.  So ya know,  the ocean front properties in the Texas Panhandle could one day be a big hit.  hehe

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
2.4  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    3 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @2.4    3 years ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2    3 years ago
"Off topic here and I apologize....but...Why does he look like he roasts small children and then eats them?"

Yes indeed and God how I hate that face!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    3 years ago

Durham is on a snipe hunt and he knows it.

If Durham cares about his personal prospects and future career in law, I humbly suggest he read Rick Wilson's book.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 years ago

He looks old enough to retire. Maybe he should do just that

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1    3 years ago

Or see if Putin needs a 'cover man'.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
3.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  bbl-1 @3    3 years ago

Snipe trap

512

 
 

Who is online





70 visitors