This is a thread about what comes next in the Durham investigation. Citing anonymous persons with knowledge, the press says Durham was ordered by AG Garland to submit a final report last May, and that that date has been moved back until after the Danchenko trial.
There are other possibilities that I’ll discuss. First, if the press is correct, it’s useful to understand what the final report would look like. The start would be to report on what Durham was ordered to do as special counsel. That’s found in Bill Barr’s order, here:
“ The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official, employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, …
“…individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, Ill.”
[This thread holds some hope that Durham will actually charge anyone of consequence and clean up some of the corruption. I strongly doubt that will happen but would love to be wrong about it. ABN]
And not just investigate, but : “ If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from his investigation ofthese matters.”
So which federal employees or officials have been prosecuted in over three years of investigating? Only one, Kevin Clinesmith, who walked a way with a slap on the hand for altering a CIA email about Carter Page.
If the Mueller Report is any guide, therefore, Durham’s final report would describe those potential crimes he investigated that involved federal employees and officials, what findings and conclusions were made, and most importantly, why there were no crimes deserving of charges.
Thanks to Durham’s disclosure in the Sussmann and Danchenko cases of a small mountain of disturbing things about FBI conduct, we have a pretty good sense of some of the potential wrongdoing by federal employees and officials Durham examined. Durham would explain why no charges.
Specifically, why wasn’t anyone charged with false statements made to the FISA court, by, among others, saying the dossier facts were verified, that they came from a Russian-based subsource ( when the FBI knew Danchenko was in Va), that Steele relied on a network of sources, when
Danchenko had told the FBI most were old school chums and drinking buddies, that the facts were objectively verified, although Danchenko told the FBI they were rumor, speculation and bar talk, etc.
Then Durham would have to explain why nobody was charged with making the same lies to the DOJ and to Congress in March 2017, to keep the bogus investigation alive. Durham would also need to describe the many instances of concealment and obstruction.
These include the failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas that should have unearthed the identity of Danchenko and the content of his FBI interview. Then there was the decision to pay him as a CHS, further burying him and his role in the hoax.
Not to mention the $1 million bounty offered to Steele, if he could verify anything in the dossier. On top of that there were mysterious destruction of records, like the FBI agent who told Danchenko to wipe his phone, or the destruction is Agent Anderson’s request about Dolan.
(Anderson testified that she learned from one of Danchenko’s sub sources that Charles Dolan- a Clinton associate who did PR work for Putin- was in fact a dossier source). She wanted to interview Dolan, but someone on the Mueller team vetoed her and then destroyed her request.
Pretty much the same thing happened with the Alfa Bank hoax investigation. Officials at FBI HQ shut down agents’ attempts to talk to the sources of the white paper and data the agents were asked to investigate. That might have led to the Clinton campaign.
Anyway, you get the idea. Durham would have to explain why none of these FBI agents and officials deserve to be charged. Which places Durham in an awkward position. If he concludes there were crimes committed by these federal employees and officials, which there seem to have been
… then Durham must also explain why he didn’t bring charges, as he was ordered to do. And that gets to the point of this thread.
Devin Nunes argued on Maria Bartiromo’s show yesterday that Durham has been blocked by AG Garland. I don’t know if that’s true, but the law sets forth what takes place if the AG forbids the SC from taking a certain action.
The applicable section is 28 USC section 600.9 requiring notification to Congress by the AG if the AG refuses such a request by the special counsel:
The law requires the AG to notify the chairmen of the judiciary committees of both houses of Congress and the ranking members, of all “instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted…”
So this means that Durham isn’t without ammunition if he’s being blocked by the AG. Durham would have to report that fact in his final report, which would include his analysis of why he believes the action (proposed charges) were justified. That then forces Garland to report.
In other words, if Durham has been prevented by AG Garland from carrying out Durham’s mandate, the chairmen and ranking members will be informed. That would undoubtedly trigger a Republican- led House to launch a full investigation by the House Judiciary Committee.
In the meantime, Durham would be forced to resign, as he could no longer carry out his mandate due to being blocked. I would expect that resignation to be noisy.
On the other hand the threat by Durham that he may set off that process could be enough to force Garland to back down and unblock Durham’s proposed prosecutions. We’ll all be interested observers, I’m sure.
This could turn really ugly very fast. A Republican led Judiciary Committee would have authority to inquire into what could appear to be an effort by the AG to obstruct lawful prosecution of crimes committed by federal employees. I’m not sure what Garland’s justification would be