╌>

Still in the game: Will Durham's report throw a slow curveball at key political players? | TheHill

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  5 years ago  •  51 comments

By:   Jonathan Turley (TheHill)

Still in the game: Will Durham's report throw a slow curveball at key political players? | TheHill
Durham is reportedly presenting evidence against FBI agents and possibly others in the use of false information at the start of the Russia probe.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Texas Rangers infielder Brock Holt went to the mound this week and threw an eephus — a high-arching, off-speed pitch — in a game against the Oakland Athletics. It is believed to be the slowest pitch recorded in MLB history, and A's batter Josh Harrison stood in disbelief as the 31 mph pitch was called a strike. Harrison just laughed in amazement.

Pirates outfielder Maurice Van Robays coined the term in the 1946 All-Star Game, explaining, "Eephus ain't nothing, and that's a nothing pitch." But as Holt demonstrated, sometimes a "nothing" slow pitch can amount to a great deal.

That is equally true about the occasional criminal eephus that takes everyone by surprise. For example, U.S. Attorney  John Durham ’s investigation has been slow in coming, but on Friday, a report surfaced that he is pitching evidence to a grand jury in an investigation started back in May 2019. The Durham investigation is now longer in duration than former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, and many people long forgot that Durham — made a special counsel at the end of the Trump administration — was even still in the game.

The report in The Wall Street Journal said Durham is presenting evidence against FBI agents and possibly others in the use of false information or tips at the start of the Russia investigation in 2016. Those "others" could include a virtual who's who of Washington politics, and even if they are not indicted, Durham could implicate some of the most powerful figures in politics in his final report, expected in the coming months.

Even for those of us who followed and wrote on the Russia investigation for five years, much has been revealed in the last year. It was disclosed in October, for instance, that  President Obama  was  briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan , on July 28, 2016, on intelligence suggesting that  Hillary Clinton  planned to tie then-candidate  Donald Trump  to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” The date was significant because the  Russia investigation was initiated July 31, 2016 , just three days later.

Throughout the campaign, the  Clinton campaign denied any involvement  in the creation of the so-called Steele dossier’s allegations of Trump-Russia connections. However, weeks after the election, journalists discovered that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the dossier made to a research firm, Fusion GPS, as  “legal fees” among the $5.6 million  paid to the campaign’s law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias, with the law firm of Perkins Coie, denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “ pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong .’” Times reporter  Maggie Haberman  declared, “ Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year .”

It was not just reporters who asked the Clinton campaign about its role in the Steele dossier. John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, was questioned by Congress and denied categorically any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the misleading information given to Congress.

It was later revealed that American intelligence viewed Steele as unreliable and believed his dossier was used by Russian intelligence to plant disinformation. Later reports show that Steele shopped the information to any reporters who would listen before the election and that there was an effort to get the information to trusted figures in the Justice Department.

This cross-pollination between the campaign and the Justice Department was evident in the strange role of Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice official who was later demoted for concealing his meetings with people pushing the Steele dossier; his wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS as a researcher on Trump's purported connections to Russia. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz subsequently found that Bruce Ohr acted improperly and committed "consequential errors in judgment."

Others are reported in some media accounts to be in Durham's crosshairs, including an analyst at the liberal Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, who was a source for part of the dossier and the subject of a Durham subpoena. Danchenko has been linked to a source viewed by American intelligence as a conduit for Russian disinformation and reportedly was investigated as a possible national security threat, according to at least one news report.

Durham also is reportedly looking into information concerning Alfa Bank, a privately owned commercial bank in Russia. That information led to possible access to the Trump campaign server. The Alfa Bank controversy is likely to make a number of powerful people particularly uneasy. Clinton campaign-linked figures such as Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson allegedly  pushed the debunked claim  that the Trump campaign had a server linked directly to the bank, which in turn was linked to  Vladimir Putin  and his cronies. The Alfa Bank conspiracy  reportedly  was pitched to the Justice Department, including in contacts with Bruce Ohr.

For many individuals, the statute of limitations may have passed on any alleged crimes. But the truth brought to light in any final report could result a public indictment of sorts.

Attorney General  Merrick Garland  may face some pressure to refuse to reauthorize a continuation of the Durham investigation, but he is likely to continue that support. After all, the Mueller investigation and various damaging investigations targeting Trump officials were approved and protected by his predecessor,  William Barr .

The final fight may be over the report itself. Many in Congress and the media may not want it to see the light of day since it is likely to be an indictment not just of the FBI but of the establishment and an enabling media. Yet these same figures demanded "full transparency" over the Mueller report, including secret grand jury material barred from release under federal law. Even in a city that lives on political spin, reversing that narrative to demand secrecy or major redactions may be difficult to achieve in front of an increasingly distrustful public.

Thus, John Durham may be the slowest pitcher of all major league federal prosecutors — but a wide array of powerful people are afraid they may be called out at the plate by what he is about to let fly.



OIP.ajSqylWM_Wv2qEgJg48UpgHaHa?w=158&h=180&c=7&o=5&pid=1.7

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Watch for it. It's coming....


th?id=OVFT.CH6TEhEHeG56WE7eZlP7pS&pid=News&w=256&h=158&c=14&rs=2&qlt=90

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago

pffft, that old POS will be pushing up daisies before he ever participates in another lengthy federal trial.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    5 years ago
Watch for it. It's coming...

Oh no, not an avatar change ...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    5 years ago

Jonathan Turley's fall from being a reasonable if terminally boring "legal expert" to being a shill for right wing fantasies has been breathtaking over the past few years. 

No one will be indicted for anything, least of all for unfairly targeting Donald Trump's campaign for investigation in 2016.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    5 years ago

Oh yes they will, wishing won't make this scandal go away..

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    5 years ago

What scandal?  The FBI has to treat all leads and reports of irregularities equally.

They have to make a decision based on evidence available at the time.

To hold them to a Monday morning Quarterback's standard many years later

is the ultimate damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Durham is basically trying to get the Grand Jury to bring criminal charges against FBI agents for doing their jobs.

Does this remind you of the Grand Jury that would not indict Andrew McCabe?  

It should and the results should be the same,  NO witch hunts.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    5 years ago
What scandal?  The FBI has to treat all leads and reports of irregularities equally.

When they know those leads and reports are full of shit they are supposed to drop them. Not use them to launch a fishing expedition against a political opponent.

They have to make a decision based on evidence available at the time.

The evidence at the time was the Steele dossier was full of shit; and they knew it.

To hold them to a Monday morning Quarterback's standard many years later

It is called being held responsible for potential crimes they committed. That whole equal under the law thing; which Democrats oppose now in our new two tier justice system.

is the ultimate damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Fuck them all. They knew what they were doing when they were doing it. Funny how they sat on the Hunter Biden hard drives- which had far more incriminating evidence.

Durham is basically trying to get the Grand Jury to bring criminal charges against FBI agents for doing their jobs.

For breaking the damn law! Get that through your thick TDS driven heads!

Does this remind you of the Grand Jury that would not indict Andrew McCabe?  

Where the hell is McGabe now? No longer working in government; and no chance of ever getting a job in it again. CNN hired his TDS driven ass. They deserve each other.

It should and the results should be the same,  NO witch hunts.

The whole damn Mueller investigation was a fucking witch hunt; but TDS sufferers had no damn problem with it! Screw them all. If they are innocent they will be found so; but many will lose their jobs w/o a golden parachute as it should be!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    5 years ago

Oh, and what charges were brought against McGabe? The Grand Jury didn't give a decision. Which is another thing you got wrong.

McCabe’s indictment had been expected on charges related to alleged lies to internal Justice Department investigators about his contacts with the media in 2016. On Thursday, Sept. 12, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported that the deputy attorney general had rejected McCabe’s final appeal within the department to avoid prosecution. According to the Post , McCabe received a communication from the Justice Department informing him that “[t]he Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter …. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.” The Times writes that the decision was made by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and that Rosen’s top aide, Ed O’Callaghan, reached out to McCabe’s team on the matter.

There is a great deal of uncertainty around what happened next, almost certainly because Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the government, court officials or grand jurors from disclosing matters before the grand jury. This may make the McCabe story a particularly hard nut for reporters to crack. But here’s what we know.

Normally, when the Justice Department informs a criminal target that it is moving ahead with charges, particularly when the target is a high-profile one, the indictment follows immediately. Yet in this case, no indictment materialized. And that wasn’t because the grand jury didn’t meet.

According to the Post , rather, the grand jury was reconvened on Thursday—but no public charges against McCabe were filed. Now, McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, has written to U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu , whose office is handling McCabe’s case, stating that the defense team has heard “rumors from reporters … that the grand jury considering charges against Mr. McCabe had declined to vote an indictment”—though the defense has “no independent knowledge of whether the reporting is accurate.” Bromwich added that “based on our discussion with” government lawyers, “it is clear that no indictment has been returned.”

The possibility of a criminal case against McCabe has smelled bad for a while. As one of us has spelled out in detail, this is not the kind of case that normally ends up as a criminal matter. While the Justice Department inspector general report that led to McCabe’s dismissal from the bureau is sharply critical of his conduct, indictments for false statements in internal Justice Department investigations, without some exacerbating factor, are exceedingly rare. This sort of misconduct is normally handled in internal disciplinary proceedings—and McCabe was already fired. Indeed, there’s nothing about the inspector general’s findings about McCabe that seem to make his case a likely candidate for a criminal disposition. What makes McCabe’s situation distinctive, rather, is the public campaign against him by the president of the United States, who has tweeted and spoken repeatedly about McCabe and publicly called for his prosecution.

Without saying a word in defense of McCabe’s conduct—which, if accurately described by the inspector general, is condemnable—there are good reasons to be anxious about a case that both seems far from the sort normally prosecuted and involves someone the president has singled out for persecution. There have also long been reasons to doubt the strength of the case, not the least of which is that two of the prosecutors who supervised it have dropped off the matter .

All of this is the background to whatever happened yesterday, when the grand jury met after McCabe’s lawyers had been informed that an indictment would be sought—and yet no indictment emerged.

It is hard to express what an incredibly rare occurrence a grand jury refusal to return what is called a “true bill” would be, if that is indeed what took place. It may not be quite accurate that, as the saying goes, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but the sentiment gets at something real. The Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that between October 2013 and September 2014 —the last year these data were publicly available—the department investigated almost 200,000 cases and declined to prosecute roughly 31,500. Of the latter category, just five of those cases were declined because a grand jury returned no true bill—a percentage so small that the Bureau of Justice Statistics declines to actually write it out. Between October 2010 and September 2011 , and October 2011 and September 2012 , the proportion of declined cases explained by grand juries returning no true bills is a momentous 0.1 percent.

McGabe did his damn job so well he was fired over it. No charges were filed against him. Again our two tier justice system playing itself out.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.3    5 years ago
Oh, and what charges were brought against McGabe? The Grand Jury didn't give a decision. Which is another thing you got wrong.

I said they failed to indict.  What did I get wrong?  Who said it's so easy to indict that even a ham sandwich could be indicted?

Rudy G?

Do you have any thing NEWER than a reactionary blog article from 2 years ago?

The matter is now headed to mediation.

McCabe and Barr appear to have been locked in procedural back-and-forth for more than a year, but Barr’s motion to dismiss was denied in September 2020, and it looked like McCabe’s case would proceed.

Now, however, it looks like both McCabe and Garland are trying to make the mediation happen, and soon.

According to the parties’ joint request to stay proceedings, both sides are “currently working to identify a mutually agreeable private mediator who is available to hold and complete mediation proceedings by August 30, 2021.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s Lawsuit Over Firing From FBI Headed to Mediation (msn.com)

Victory for McCabe seems like a forgone conclusion now.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    5 years ago

All partisan talking points voted up by the regulars

Congratulations.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.4    5 years ago

Fuck the asshole Garland. He is a leftwing POS. Of course he is negotiating with the leftist tool McGabe.

The asshole deserved to be fired and prosecuted. All you are pointing out is that our two tier justice system is still in full damn affect!

But that is OK with the left; it is what they want for this country.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.5    5 years ago

Ah, none of your regulars coming around? I am sure if you ask nicely they will give you some mercy votes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.4    5 years ago
Who said it's so easy to indict that even a ham sandwich could be indicted?

Not in DC when it involves Trump.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Participates
2.1.9  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.6    5 years ago
Fuck the asshole Garland. He is a leftwing POS.

Stated in your usual eloquence I see.

BTW the asshole, LW POS Garland is the person who is going to keep Trump from being prosecuted, at least for 01/06.

To which I'd respond: not so fast. It's one thing to describe the former president's behavior as disgraceful and wrong -- and I'd share that view -- but quite another to argue that Trump should be criminally prosecuted. Based on the available evidence, there is no basis to prosecute Trump and little reason even to open a criminal investigation.

Federal criminal prosecutions can take place only pursuant to specific statutes, so it's worth analyzing some of the laws that critics say Trump may have violated.

Insurrection Act.

This law prohibits anyone who "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto." In the first place, this law has almost never been invoked. The leading precedent on the statute comes from a case from 1863!

In theory, Trump's encouragement of the Capitol rioters on January 6 could be a basis for this charge against him. But there are two insurmountable problems. First, Trump's words were ambiguous.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, don't prosecute Donald Trump (opinion) (msn.com)

good article by that other worthless POS Jeffrey Toobin.

Read it, it might improve your mood.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Quiet
3  pat wilson    5 years ago

Mr. Durham has been examining potential criminal charges against several lower-level Federal Bureau of Investigation employees, and people who aren’t in government,

Big whoop.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @3    5 years ago

another lackluster participant in the trumpster kitchen sink tossing contest...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  pat wilson @3    5 years ago

Trump may demand to be re-instated as president and the clock rewound to 2017. 

 
 

Who is online




347 visitors