Durham moving 'full-throttle' on Russia probe review, top federal prosecutors involved: sources

  
Via:  Release The Kraken  •  5 months ago  •  16 comments

By:   Brooke Singman (Fox News)

Durham moving 'full-throttle' on Russia probe review, top federal prosecutors involved: sources
U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham is going "full throttle" with his review into the origins of the investigation into suspected Russia-Trump coordination in the 2016 election, with additional top prosecutors involved in looking at different components of the original probe, sources told Fox News.

Sponsored by group The Donald on Newstalkers

The Donald on Newstalkers


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


close694940094001_6118528301001_6118526590001 Video

Rep. Andy Biggs calls Democrats' criticism of Attorney General Barr and John Durham 'comical'


A handful of House Democrats want U.S. attorney John Durham to step aside; reaction from Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs, Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee.

U.S. Attorney for Connecticut John Durham is going "full throttle" with his review into the origins of the investigation into suspected Russia-Trump coordination in the 2016 election, with additional top prosecutors involved in looking at different components of the original probe, sources told Fox News.

Two sources told Fox News that Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri who was tapped by the Justice Department in February to review the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is continuing to help with Durham's investigation even after the DOJ's move last week to drop the case against Flynn.

The sources told Fox News that interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea is also assisting with components of the investigation.

"They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn't want to be distracted," one of the sources told Fox News.

"He's going full throttle, and they're looking at everything," the source told Fox News.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Jensen and Shea's involvement.

image.jpg Video

DOJ INVESTIGATES THE INVESTIGATORS: 5 INTERNAL PROBES UNDERWAY ON RUSSIA AND MORE

Any indication that Durham could be building a case against anyone involved in the original Russia probe, however, is sure to inflame tensions between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats -- who already are ramping up accusations that these Justice Department reviews have become politicized. They slammed Attorney General Bill Barr for the DOJ's decision Thursday to drop the Flynn case.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who was a key figure during Trump's impeachment proceedings, called the decision "outrageous."

"The evidence against General Flynn is overwhelming," Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement. Nadler and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday also formally requested that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz launch an investigation into Barr's "pattern of conduct that includes improper political interference."

The DOJ determined that the bureau's 2017 Flynn interview -- which formed the basis for his guilty plea of lying to investigators -- was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis."

The retired Army lieutenant general for months has been trying to withdraw his plea, aided by a new attorney aggressively challenging the prosecution's case and conduct.

Breadcrumbs were being dropped in the days preceding the decision that his case could be reconsidered. Documents unsealed the prior week by the Justice Department revealed agents discussed their motivations for interviewing him in the Russia probe - questioning whether they wanted to "get him to lie" so he'd be fired or prosecuted, or get him to admit wrongdoing. Flynn allies howled over the revelations, arguing that he essentially had been set up in a perjury trap. In that interview, Flynn did not admit wrongdoing and instead was accused of lying about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador - to which he pleaded guilty.

Jensen reportedly was the one who recommended dropping the case to Barr.

Meanwhile, Barr, during an interview with CBS News on Thursday, was asked whether he felt the FBI conspired to get Flynn fired from the Trump administration.

"I think, you know, that's a question that really has to wait [for] an analysis of all the different episodes that occurred through the summer of 2016 and the first several months of President Trump's administration," Barr told CBS News, while adding that Durham is "still looking at all of this," in reference to the Flynn case.

image.jpg Video

"This is one particular episode, but we view it as part of a number of related acts ... and we're looking at the whole pattern of conduct," Barr said, noting that they were investigating before "and after ... the election."

Meanwhile, a source said that the "pattern of conduct" Durham is investigating includes misrepresentations made to the FISA court to obtain warrants to surveil Trump campaign associate Carter Page.

"Barr talks to Durham every day," one source recently told Fox News. "The president has been briefed that the case is being pursued, and it's serious."

President Trump on Friday offered a vague, but ominous, warning as the Durham probe proceeds.

"It was a very dangerous situation what they did," Trump said during an interview with "Fox & Friends" Friday. "These are dirty politicians and dirty cops and some horrible people and hopefully they're going to pay a big price in the not too distant future."

Trump was specifically reacting to newly released transcripts of interviews from the House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation that revealed top Obama officials acknowledged they knew of no "empirical evidence" of a conspiracy despite their concerns and suspicions.

image.jpg Video

The officials' responses align with the results of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — which found no evidence of criminal coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, while not reaching a determination on obstruction of justice.

The transcripts, which were released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., revealed top Obama officials were questioned over whether they had or had seen evidence of such collusion, coordination or conspiracy -- the issue that drove the FBI's initial case and later the special counsel probe. They generally said they had not.

"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2017. "That's not to say that there weren't concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. ... But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence."

As for Durham's probe, multiple sources familiar told Fox News that he is expected to wrap up his investigation by the end of the summer.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @BrookeSingman.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Release The Kraken
1  seeder  Release The Kraken    5 months ago

When your favorite beurocrats spend their life savings on Attorneys and a go fund me account funds their commissary in the federal prison.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    5 months ago

The "Scars' of not wanting an outsider (Trump and Friends) in D.C. !

Really does mess up the Private "Good Ol' Boy and Gal Club" !

Damn Outsiders ! They can really throw a wrench in a Decades Old "Good Thing" !

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
3  Colour Me Free    5 months ago
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in 2017. "That's not to say that there weren't concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. ... But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence."

No direct evidence ..?  Anecdotal evidence ..?

No direct evidence .. means there is basically NO evidence ..?  This is the definition of 'direct evidence'

Direct evidence is defined as "evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption.

Here is the definition of 'anecdotal evidence'

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes : evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Is that not relying on speculation, opinion and bias?

I am curious as to how many individuals would like to be charge for a crime based on 'anecdotal evidence' .. would one not question if evidence is legitimate?  Can it be believed?

Is this how the United States justice system is suppose to work …?

P.s... Question are rhetorical and definitions came from the internet - NO specific site ...

 
 
 
Thomas
3.1  Thomas  replied to  Colour Me Free @3    5 months ago

I didn't know that the president was charged with anything.  Investigated, surely. But that is what is supposed to happen.

Did you believe Declassified Transcripts: CrowdStrike Couldn't Say For Sure Russians Stole DNC Emails? Because it wasn't true. Just read the transcript. That is what I did and I found out it was deceptive and basically untrue at the foundational level of the article. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
3.1.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Thomas @3.1    5 months ago

Did not say the president was charged … I simply pointed out the definition of words that have been used by appointed officials justifying what started the Russia conspiracy and then the Mueller investigation … CrowdStrike [unless I missed it] has nothing to do with the article at hand … but if we are going to have a conversation about the events that took place in the summer of 2016 .. let us talk about the previous administration lack of action - allowing Russia to continue to meddle and allegedly 'steal' DNC emails

So much has been 'deceptive and basically untrue' … partisanship only magnifies said 'deceptive and 'basically' untrue' - sounds like Kellyanne Conway's alternative facts!

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    5 months ago

Tighten the screws a little bit more on the corrupt bunch of Obama toadies!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4    5 months ago

Tighten the screws a little bit more on the corrupt bunch of Obama toadies!

Y r u wanting to torcher Toads. The projector in chief has projected his corrupt ass upon no drama Obama. Ironic all Drama Trumppy , the man of never ending investigations, wants the man investigated who had none of his administration needed to resign or go to jail, that would bethe irony of Trump, the Fe. Male ordering brides with a country to divides

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1    5 months ago
Y r u wanting to torcher Toads. The projector in chief has projected his corrupt ass upon no drama Obama. Ironic all Drama Trumppy , the man of never ending investigations, wants the man investigated who had none of his administration needed to resign or go to jail, that would bethe irony of Trump, the Fe. Male ordering brides with a country to divides

Why must you write in gibberish instead of communicating in the normal fashion?

Why must you deflect to Trump every time someone dares to criticize your Messiah Obama?

Why must you ask such inane questions?

Go drink some more Kool-Aid.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.1    5 months ago

I guess he thinks it's clever and cute to come across that way, but it's just mindless trolling

But getting serious...the Dems are in for a summer of sadness and woe, followed by disappointment galore in November..

Most of these investigations are being looked at as "criminal" investigations because real laws were broken.

I suspect by the Fourth of July some subpoenas will have been issued, and I hope to see some perp walks by September.  

It would fun to see scumbags Comey and Obama  wearing jail house orange!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.2    5 months ago

More content free speculation. 

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.4  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.1    4 months ago

Well said.  You pegged them just right.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @4    5 months ago

256

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.1  MAGA  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2    4 months ago

If the worst case scenario happened and Biden were elected President, the first act in office would be to pardon all those criminals in your pic above.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
4.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  MAGA @4.2.1    4 months ago

Biden wouldn't pardon anyone. He would simply end all of the investigations regardless of their progress or what they turned up; and launch a new investigation into Trump, Barr, and anyone associated with the process.

"But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!" would be the only refrain from Democrats lips and their media sycophants will be more than eager to echo it.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.3  MAGA  replied to  Ronin2 @4.2.2    4 months ago

If Biden wins he will be the first President ever to target his predecessor with criminal indictments over political and ideological differences.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Old Hermit
Texan1211
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
MonsterMash
Mark in Wyoming
Dulay
bccrane
Kavika


72 visitors